Bug 1886621 - Review Request: php-pecl-datadog_trace - APM and distributed tracing for PHP to Datadog
Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-datadog_trace - APM and distributed tracing for PHP ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2020-10-08 22:44 UTC by Daniel Axelrod
Modified: 2022-01-30 19:27 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-01-28 17:22:48 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Comment 1 Neal Gompa 2020-10-08 22:46:28 UTC
Taking this review.

Comment 2 Neal Gompa 2020-10-08 23:03:47 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/


===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "FSF All Permissive
     License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Expat License". 389
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/ngompa/1886621-php-pecl-datadog_trace/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 7 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s).
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

PHP:
[?]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: php-pecl-datadog_trace-0.48.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo-0.48.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          php-pecl-datadog_trace-debugsource-0.48.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
          php-pecl-datadog_trace-0.48.3-1.fc34.src.rpm
php-pecl-datadog_trace.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pecl.php.net/package/datadog_trace The read operation timed out
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datadog -> data dog, data-dog, matador
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datadog -> data dog, data-dog, matador
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pecl.php.net/package/datadog_trace The read operation timed out
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datadog -> data dog, data-dog, matador
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datadog -> data dog, data-dog, matador
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pecl.php.net/package/datadog_trace The read operation timed out
php-pecl-datadog_trace.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 32: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires:       php(zend-abi) = %{php_zend_api}
php-pecl-datadog_trace.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 33: Possible unexpanded macro in: Requires:       php(api) = %{php_core_api}
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo-0.48.3-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datadog -> data dog, data-dog, matador
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datadog -> data dog, data-dog, matador
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datadog -> data dog, data-dog, matador
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datadog -> data dog, data-dog, matador
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pecl.php.net/package/datadog_trace <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) datadog -> data dog, data-dog, matador
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debugsource.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datadog -> data dog, data-dog, matador
php-pecl-datadog_trace-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pecl.php.net/package/datadog_trace <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
php-pecl-datadog_trace.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://pecl.php.net/package/datadog_trace <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution>
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
php-pecl-datadog_trace: /usr/lib64/php-zts/modules/ddtrace.so
php-pecl-datadog_trace: /usr/lib64/php/modules/ddtrace.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://pecl.php.net/get/datadog_trace-0.48.3.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 83e876b81c7962b0997e851d8816792a89e379862fea0d6642ccb5c1f8be0600
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 83e876b81c7962b0997e851d8816792a89e379862fea0d6642ccb5c1f8be0600


Requires
--------
php-pecl-datadog_trace (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(php-pecl-datadog_trace)
    ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libcurl.so.4()(64bit)
    librt.so.1()(64bit)
    php(api)
    php(zend-abi)
    php-curl
    php-json
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

php-pecl-datadog_trace-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
php-pecl-datadog_trace:
    config(php-pecl-datadog_trace)
    php-datadog_trace
    php-datadog_trace(x86-64)
    php-ddtrace
    php-ddtrace(x86-64)
    php-pecl(datadog_trace)
    php-pecl(datadog_trace)(x86-64)
    php-pecl(ddtrace)
    php-pecl(ddtrace)(x86-64)
    php-pecl-datadog_trace
    php-pecl-datadog_trace(x86-64)

php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo
    php-pecl-datadog_trace-debuginfo(x86-64)

php-pecl-datadog_trace-debugsource:
    php-pecl-datadog_trace-debugsource
    php-pecl-datadog_trace-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1886621 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: PHP, C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Python, Ocaml, R, Haskell, fonts
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comment 3 Neal Gompa 2020-10-09 00:01:56 UTC
> - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
>  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
>  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
>  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

This is relatively minor, you can add this on import.

> [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
>     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
>     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.

This is actually fine.

Comment 4 Neal Gompa 2020-10-09 00:04:13 UTC
This looks great. Address the minor issue when you upload, please.

PACKAGE APPROVED.

Comment 5 Neal Gompa 2020-10-09 00:05:59 UTC
I am sponsoring daxelrod into the packager collection.

Congratulations Daniel on becoming a packager in Fedora!

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2020-10-09 13:17:45 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-pecl-datadog_trace

Comment 7 Daniel Axelrod 2020-10-09 17:41:32 UTC
Thank you for your review, approval, and sponsorship, @ngompa13 !

>> - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
>>  BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
>>  Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
>>  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
>
> This is relatively minor, you can add this on import.

The package already BuildRequires php-devel, which Requires gcc. This should be sufficient to ensure that gcc is available when building php-pecl-datadog_trace. By my interpretation, this means that the package as-is already satisfies this packaging guideline and shouldn't require modification.

However, if you believe the packaging guideline requires an explicit first level BuildRequires on gcc, just let me know, and I'm happy to do that.

Comment 8 Neal Gompa 2020-10-13 03:08:45 UTC
That seems reasonable to me.

Comment 9 Mattia Verga 2021-10-22 13:52:31 UTC
Daniel, you forgot to import and build the package. Are you still interested in finalizing the review process?

Comment 10 Daniel Axelrod 2022-01-28 03:51:53 UTC
My apologies for the delay here, Mattia. I had a family emergency shortly after posting this ticket, and an email misconfiguration meant that I missed Bugzilla notifications until now.

Unfortunately, this package causes a particularly nasty PHP coredump in real-world use, for reasons I was unable to track down. Therefore, I would like to retract it from consideration.

Should I just set this ticket to CLOSED, or are there other cleanup steps that need to be done?

Comment 11 Mattia Verga 2022-01-28 17:22:48 UTC
(In reply to Daniel Axelrod from comment #10)
> My apologies for the delay here, Mattia. I had a family emergency shortly
> after posting this ticket, and an email misconfiguration meant that I missed
> Bugzilla notifications until now.
> 
> Unfortunately, this package causes a particularly nasty PHP coredump in
> real-world use, for reasons I was unable to track down. Therefore, I would
> like to retract it from consideration.
> 
> Should I just set this ticket to CLOSED, or are there other cleanup steps
> that need to be done?

Don't worry, we all have other higher priorities other than Fedora packaging :-)

I'll take care to ask to retire the repository in src.fedoraproject.org.

Comment 12 Mattia Verga 2022-01-28 17:27:29 UTC
Oh, Daniel, I've changed my mind: the best thing to do is that you login in src.fedoraproject.org and orphan the package, so it will be automatically retired after 6 weeks.
That would avoid me asking other users to do the work.

Thank you.

Comment 13 Daniel Axelrod 2022-01-30 19:27:36 UTC
Ok, package marked as orphaned in src.fedoraproject.org. Thank you!


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.