Bug 2422653 - Review Request: tree-sitter-phpdoc - PHPDoc grammar for Tree-sitter
Summary: Review Request: tree-sitter-phpdoc - PHPDoc grammar for Tree-sitter
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ruslan Bekenev
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2258924
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-12-16 13:51 UTC by Peter Oliver
Modified: 2026-04-01 00:57 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-03-31 14:47:04 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
furyinbox: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9915107 to 10162062 (737 bytes, patch)
2026-02-23 23:57 UTC, Fedora Review Service
no flags Details | Diff

Description Peter Oliver 2025-12-16 13:51:47 UTC
Spec URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-phpdoc.spec
SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-phpdoc-0.1.7-1.fc44.src.rpm
Description: Add support for PHPDoc to Tree-sitter, an incremental parsing system for programming tools.
Fedora Account System Username: mavit

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-12-16 13:55:36 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9915107
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2422653-tree-sitter-phpdoc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09915107-tree-sitter-phpdoc/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

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.

Comment 2 Ruslan Bekenev 2026-02-23 09:04:43 UTC
Thank you for packaging this one!
It matches example in here https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Tree-sitter/ perfectly.

It seems like v0.1.8 has been released in Dec 2025.
Could you please update the spec file.

Other than that it looks great. 

(I'm doing mock reviews atm but I'll ping a person who can hopefully double check the review outcome)


Package Review
==============

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


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++/
- Dist tag is present.


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 42 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /var/home/krydos/Projects/fedora-review/phpdoc-treesitter/2422653-tree-sitter-phpdoc/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[+]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 429 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).
[+]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libtree-
     sitter-phpdoc
[+]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libtree-sitter-phpdoc-0.1.7-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          libtree-sitter-phpdoc-devel-0.1.7-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          tree-sitter-phpdoc-0.1.7-1.fc45.src.rpm
========================================================== rpmlint session starts ==========================================================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpfxn_b1hf')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

==================== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s =====================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/claytonrcarter/tree-sitter-phpdoc/archive/v0.1.7/tree-sitter-phpdoc-0.1.7.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9f1589efd884aaf02800d52a0ed9cd4c85ddce46f8f8d0148517d27bea36173e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f1589efd884aaf02800d52a0ed9cd4c85ddce46f8f8d0148517d27bea36173e


Requires
--------
libtree-sitter-phpdoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    tree-sitter(:LANGUAGE_VERSION)

libtree-sitter-phpdoc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libtree-sitter-devel
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc(x86-64)
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc.so.0()(64bit)



Provides
--------
libtree-sitter-phpdoc:
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc(x86-64)
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc.so.0()(64bit)
    tree-sitter(phpdoc)

libtree-sitter-phpdoc-devel:
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc-devel
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(tree-sitter-phpdoc)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /var/home/krydos/Projects/fedora-review/phpdoc-treesitter/2422653-tree-sitter-phpdoc/srpm/tree-sitter-phpdoc.spec	2026-02-23 19:30:38.749093498 +1100
+++ /var/home/krydos/Projects/fedora-review/phpdoc-treesitter/2422653-tree-sitter-phpdoc/srpm-unpacked/tree-sitter-phpdoc.spec	2025-12-16 11:00:00.000000000 +1100
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.8.1)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           tree-sitter-phpdoc
 Version:        0.1.7
@@ -10,3 +20,6 @@

 %changelog
-%{autochangelog}
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Tue Dec 16 2025 Peter Oliver <git.uk> - 0.1.7-1
+- Initial package.
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2422653
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, PHP, fonts, Haskell, Python, Java, Perl, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 4 Fedora Review Service 2026-02-23 23:57:48 UTC
Created attachment 2130760 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9915107 to 10162062

Comment 5 Fedora Review Service 2026-02-23 23:57:51 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10162062
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2422653-tree-sitter-phpdoc/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10162062-tree-sitter-phpdoc/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/

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.

Comment 6 Ruslan Bekenev 2026-03-09 07:55:02 UTC
Thank you for updating the srpm. 
All looks good. Two issues mentioned below seems to be false positives. 

Package Review
==============

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


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++/
- Dist tag is present.


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

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 42 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/tree-sitter-
     phpdoc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 429 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

Generic:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libtree-
     sitter-phpdoc
[x]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[-]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
     Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n)
     %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
[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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.

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

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libtree-sitter-phpdoc-0.1.8-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          libtree-sitter-phpdoc-devel-0.1.8-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          tree-sitter-phpdoc-0.1.8-1.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmp3fby6vas')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

tree-sitter-phpdoc.spec: W: specfile-warning sh: warning: setlocale: LC_ALL: cannot change locale (en_US.UTF-8): No such file or directory
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "libtree-sitter-phpdoc".
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/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

 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "libtree-sitter-phpdoc-devel".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/claytonrcarter/tree-sitter-phpdoc/archive/v0.1.8/tree-sitter-phpdoc-0.1.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b7a750e002b916a50c878c53087175dde5f256eb73d2d479b11b24d6c4b9a885
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7a750e002b916a50c878c53087175dde5f256eb73d2d479b11b24d6c4b9a885


Requires
--------
libtree-sitter-phpdoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rtld(GNU_HASH)
    tree-sitter(:LANGUAGE_VERSION)

libtree-sitter-phpdoc-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libtree-sitter-devel
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc(x86-64)
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc.so.0()(64bit)



Provides
--------
libtree-sitter-phpdoc:
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc(x86-64)
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc.so.0()(64bit)
    tree-sitter(phpdoc)

libtree-sitter-phpdoc-devel:
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc-devel
    libtree-sitter-phpdoc-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(tree-sitter-phpdoc)



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name tree-sitter-phpdoc --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Haskell, Java, Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 7 Peter Oliver 2026-03-09 11:39:24 UTC
Thanks for the review.  Perhaps once you are sponsored, you could come back and mark the package approved (if no-one else has done it by then).

Comment 8 Ruslan Bekenev 2026-03-22 10:33:00 UTC
Hey Peter, 
the packager is approved. Thank you. I hope I properly marked it as such. Let me know if I missed anything

Comment 9 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-03-23 15:19:52 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-sitter-phpdoc

Comment 10 Peter Oliver 2026-03-23 15:34:01 UTC
(In reply to Ruslan Bekenev from comment #8)
> the packager is approved. Thank you. I hope I properly marked it as such.
> Let me know if I missed anything

Thanks again.  Looks good.  Congratulations on getting sponsored.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2026-03-23 15:42:06 UTC
FEDORA-2026-863da84fb2 (tree-sitter-phpdoc-0.1.8-2.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-863da84fb2

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2026-03-23 15:58:07 UTC
FEDORA-2026-0148dfc1a7 (tree-sitter-phpdoc-0.1.8-2.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-0148dfc1a7

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2026-03-24 01:31:20 UTC
FEDORA-2026-863da84fb2 has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-863da84fb2 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-863da84fb2

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2026-03-24 01:52:29 UTC
FEDORA-2026-0148dfc1a7 has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-0148dfc1a7 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-0148dfc1a7

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2026-03-31 14:47:04 UTC
FEDORA-2026-863da84fb2 (tree-sitter-phpdoc-0.1.8-2.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2026-04-01 00:57:08 UTC
FEDORA-2026-0148dfc1a7 (tree-sitter-phpdoc-0.1.8-2.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


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