Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lcts/nextcloud/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02329603-php-guzzlehttp-guzzle7/php-guzzlehttp-guzzle7.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/lcts/nextcloud/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/02329603-php-guzzlehttp-guzzle7/php-guzzlehttp-guzzle7-7.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: PHP HTTP client library version 7 Since this package is set up to use rpmautospec, rpmlint/fedora-review will complain about missing dist tags & macros in changelog. These are spurious errors/warnings. This package is available from the lcts/nextcloud Copr, so you can also test it using 'fedora-review --copr-build 2329603' Fedora Account System Username: lcts
It would have been simpler to adapt the php-guzzlehttp-guzzle6 RPM Notice, you have to use range dependencies ex, from composer.json "guzzlehttp/promises": "^1.4", So Requires: (php-composer(guzzlehttp/promises) >= 1.4 with php-composer(guzzlehttp/promises) < 2) So, if v2 is released (package will be php-guzzlehttp-promises2) it won't be used.
Hello Christopher, I will review this. Here is a successful koji scratch build. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=82668515 Hirotaka
Hello Christopher, I have reviewed this. Please see the attached. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= * This package name should be php-guzzlehttp-guzzle. * php-guzzlehttp-guzzle already exists, but it supports guzzle-v5.3.4 which version is already EOL and need to be upgraded. * https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-guzzlehttp-guzzle * https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PHP/#naming-scheme * Or, use Obsoletes tag if php-guzzlehttp-guzzle7 has compatibility with php-guzzlehttp-guzzle. * https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages * tests in %prep section is needed. * upstream provides tests but, no tests in %prep. * https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_test_suites * versions should be upgraded. * 7.4.1 is released * required packages version(from composer.json) * Please check the #1 comment for future package dependencies. * https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982627#c1 ===== MUST items ===== 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. [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). [?]: 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. [?]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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]: 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: [x]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. PHP: [x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files. Note: [ERROR] Handling "Bartlett\CompatInfo\Application\Query\Analyser\Compatibility\GetCompatibilityQuery" failed: Object of class PhpParser\Node\Expr\Variable could not be converted to string 6.2.0@dcb0d52 static analyze results in /home/build/1982627-php-guzzlehttp-guzzle7/phpci.log Rpmlint ------- $ rpmlint ./results/php-guzzlehttp-guzzle7-7.3.0-1.fc37.noarch.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts ============================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 ================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =============== $ rpmlint ./results/php-guzzlehttp-guzzle7-7.3.0-1.fc37.src.rpm =============================================== rpmlint session starts ============================================== rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 ================ 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =============== Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/guzzle/guzzle/archive/7008573787b430c1c1f650e3722d9bba59967628/guzzle-7.3.0-7008573.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 24ba6d4b6744e6a2954857a1e65f63f986ae45a3a2d35b4e5e0aa68b8c744429 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 24ba6d4b6744e6a2954857a1e65f63f986ae45a3a2d35b4e5e0aa68b8c744429 Requires -------- php-guzzlehttp-guzzle7 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): php(language) php-composer(fedora/autoloader) php-composer(guzzlehttp/promises) php-composer(guzzlehttp/psr7) php-composer(psr/http-client) php-date php-filter php-json php-pcre php-spl Provides -------- php-guzzlehttp-guzzle7: php-composer(guzzlehttp/guzzle) php-composer(psr/http-client-implementation) php-guzzlehttp-guzzle7 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1982627 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, PHP Disabled plugins: Ocaml, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Python, Perl, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Regards, Hirotaka
Hello Christopher, are you still interested in this issue? We hope to hear from you soon. Regards, Hirotaka?
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag. You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group. Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned and will be closed. Thank you for your patience.