Spec URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/composer-generators.spec SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/composer-generators-0.1.0-1.fedora.src.rpm Description: This package provides RPM generators which are used for getting provides from composer enabled applications. * find main project name and provide it * find bundled libraries and provide them Fedora Account System Username: remi
Notice: my 1st idea was to add these 2 small files in a sub-package of composer But this will require a bootstrap of composer, so a separate package seems simple Also, the git repo is used for both the project and its packaging. SIG discussion raised: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/php-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/V6GOZH6CVZ3MIQ6CYUB3AK6PCOCTZ4DC/
Tested with: - composer => https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/composer.git/commit/?id=091e1cbfa5410d7f763e9375ed19c200affda944 - pie => https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/pie.git/commit/?id=3a9b6d7bac8ef00a639559ee5e63f3853275de7d - roudcubemail => https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/roundcubemail.git/commit/?id=5cdd9d1c580b60dd29e56c7cdb859a3ca30feeb2 - phpMyAdmin => https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/phpmyadmin/phpMyAdmin.git/commit/?id=23ec6581f7aea5d6f565808a888dd89de89c5fa4
Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/composer-generators.git/plain/composer-generators.spec?id=139345d0093e3677a2a0fe862cdf02b83c043dab SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/composer-generators-0.1.1-1.remi.src.rpm
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8454839 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2317977-composer-generators/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08454839-composer-generators/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sergio/fedora-scm/docker/2317977-composer- generators/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm, /usr/lib/rpm/fileattrs [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 357 bytes in 1 files. [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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: composer-generators-0.1.1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm composer-generators-0.1.1-1.fc42.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpxh561dr0')] checks: 32, packages: 2 composer-generators.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib composer-generators.spec: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 composer-generators.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- composer-generators (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/php php-cli Provides -------- composer-generators: composer-generators Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2317977 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, Ruby, C/C++, Ocaml, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell, Java, PHP, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH no issues , very minimal spec to review Package APPROVED
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/composer-generators
Thanks for the review! SCM requests: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/71827 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/71828 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/71829 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/71830 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/71831 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/71832
FEDORA-2025-d31c5021f0 (composer-generators-0.1.1-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d31c5021f0
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-273fef42d0 (composer-generators-0.1.1-1.el9) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-273fef42d0
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-fda48e1b59 (composer-generators-0.1.1-1.el10_0) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.0. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-fda48e1b59
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-af6c23370f (composer-generators-0.1.1-1.el8) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-af6c23370f
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-af6c23370f has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-af6c23370f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-273fef42d0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-273fef42d0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-fda48e1b59 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-fda48e1b59 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-40331759e2 has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-40331759e2 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-40331759e2 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-d31c5021f0 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-d31c5021f0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-d31c5021f0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-16273dec74 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-16273dec74 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-16273dec74 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-17d78ecfed has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-17d78ecfed \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-17d78ecfed See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-f2a1173aa5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-f2a1173aa5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-fcf20fbc80 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-fcf20fbc80 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-02b3073f3a has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-02b3073f3a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-16273dec74 (composer-generators-0.1.2-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2025-17d78ecfed (composer-generators-0.1.2-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-f2a1173aa5 (composer-generators-0.1.2-1.el9) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-fcf20fbc80 (composer-generators-0.1.2-1.el8) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2025-02b3073f3a (composer-generators-0.1.2-1.el10_0) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.0 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.