Spec URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-pspell.spec SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-pspell-1.0.1-1.fedora.8.3.src.rpm Description: This extension allows you to check the spelling of a word and offer suggestions, using GNU Aspell library and dictionaries. Fedora Account System Username: remi
Notice: this extension was part of php-src (provided by php-pspell package) until 8.3, was removed in 8.4. So target is F42+ Also see bug #2357027
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8884165 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2358783-php-pecl-pspell/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08884165-php-pecl-pspell/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - aspell-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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 Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: aspell-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/deprecating-packages/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: 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]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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", "PHP License v3.01". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/php-pecl-pspell/2358783-php-pecl- pspell/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: 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 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 19 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. Note: phpcompatinfo not found. Install php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo package to get a more comprehensive php review. See: url: undefined Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-pecl-pspell-1.0.1-1.fc43.8.4.x86_64.rpm php-pecl-pspell-1.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpzso1dkhc')] checks: 32, packages: 2 php-pecl-pspell.spec: E: specfile-error sh: line 1: fg: no job control php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1-1 ['1.0.1-1.fc43.8.4', '1.0.1-1.8.4'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 9 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: php-pecl-pspell-debuginfo-1.0.1-1.fc43.8.4.x86_64.rpm ============================ 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpn4p31oht')] checks: 32, packages: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 5 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 2 php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so /lib64/libpspell.so.15 php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so zend_string_init_interned (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so std_object_handlers (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so zend_parse_parameters (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so php_check_open_basedir (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so zend_object_std_init (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so ap_php_snprintf (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so php_info_print_table_row (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so zend_register_long_constant (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so php_error_docref (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so php_info_print_table_end (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so zend_register_internal_class_ex (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so object_init_ex (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so _zend_new_array_0 (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so add_next_index_string (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so _emalloc (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so php_info_print_table_start (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so zend_throw_error (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so object_properties_init (/usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so) php-pecl-pspell.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.0.1-1 ['1.0.1-1.fc43.8.4', '1.0.1-1.8.4'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 20 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- php-pecl-pspell: /usr/lib64/php/modules/pspell.so Source checksums ---------------- https://pecl.php.net/get/pspell-1.0.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 585441202e3a53e7b5190b38c2f8438d37b53845448d28af5f904cf65c56c02f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 585441202e3a53e7b5190b38c2f8438d37b53845448d28af5f904cf65c56c02f Requires -------- php-pecl-pspell (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(php-pecl-pspell) libaspell.so.15()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libpspell.so.15()(64bit) php(api) php(zend-abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- php-pecl-pspell: config(php-pecl-pspell) php-pecl(pspell) php-pecl(pspell)(x86-64) php-pecl-pspell php-pecl-pspell(x86-64) php-pspell php-pspell(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2358783 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic, PHP Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Python, Java, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please add %if %{with tests} BuildRequires: aspell-en %endif to the spec file to ensure full tests run. b) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=131366193 c) Primary issue is dependence on deprecated package.
Spec URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-pspell.spec SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/temp/php-pecl-pspell-1.0.1-1.fedora.8.3.src.rpm a) done c) I know But this is to fix upgrade issue and there is a discussion about un-deprecated this tool on devel ML as the project is active again.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8885776 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2358783-php-pecl-pspell/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08885776-php-pecl-pspell/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - aspell-devel is deprecated, you must not depend on it. Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Have created a packaging committee ticket: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1452
Approved based on: https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1452
That's not what that issue says. It says that FPC is deferring to FESCo, and that you should file a FESCo ticket to ask for an exception from them. Please do that first before approving this review.
Thanks. FESCo ticket: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3391
FESCO has granted the exemption.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-pecl-pspell
SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/74611 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/74612
FEDORA-2025-3e90e2418b (php-pecl-pspell-1.0.1-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3e90e2418b
FEDORA-2025-3e90e2418b has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-3e90e2418b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-3e90e2418b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-3e90e2418b (php-pecl-pspell-1.0.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.