SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/krydos/emacs-php-mode/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10118828-emacs-php-mode/emacs-php-mode.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/krydos/emacs-php-mode/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10118828-emacs-php-mode/emacs-php-mode-1.27.0-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: Major GNU Emacs mode for editing PHP code Fedora Account System Username: krydos emacs-php-mode has been reviewed previously in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289860 but eventually got orphaned. https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/emacs-php-mode - here it is in fedora project rpms. I'm happy to take it but I can't press "Take" button currently because I'm part of any fedora groups (I assume I need to be a packager to do it). This package now depends on a package called eask which isn't published yet: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2333620 emacs-php-mode currently builds successfully in copr with eask repo added. Reproducible: Always
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10135438 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440157-emacs-php-mode/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10135438-emacs-php-mode/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- 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.
Hi Benson, I hope you not mind I added you here. Hopefully we can have a look at this one after eask package goes through the review process. Thanks again for your help.
Thanks for your initial review of eask. While we wait for it to get to the official repositories, could your do 2 more informal reviews of new packages and link to them here?
hey Benson, here are the 2 more reviews: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2428257 (emacs-cond-let) - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2422653 (tree-sitter-phpdoc) Let me know please what can be improved. And thanks again for your help.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPLv3+'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/emacs-php-mode See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later and/or PHP License", "FSF All Permissive License". 156 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/emacs-php- mode/2440157-emacs-php-mode/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/emacs, /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp, /usr/share/emacs/site-lisp/site-start.d [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 26587 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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 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 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. [ ]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: emacs-php-mode-1.27.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm emacs-php-mode-1.27.0-1.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/tmpv42vkolq')] checks: 32, packages: 2 emacs-php-mode.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv3+ emacs-php-mode.src: W: invalid-license GPLv3+ emacs-php-mode.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.18.2-5 ['1.27.0-1.fc45', '1.27.0-1'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 7 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: 1 emacs-php-mode.noarch: W: invalid-license GPLv3+ emacs-php-mode.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.18.2-5 ['1.27.0-1.fc45', '1.27.0-1'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/emacs-php/php-mode/archive/v1.27.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2ac03fe0e553d2df630b267f51069a815e430e3b73bf14f6844244ccfbb4778f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2ac03fe0e553d2df630b267f51069a815e430e3b73bf14f6844244ccfbb4778f Requires -------- emacs-php-mode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): emacs(bin) Provides -------- emacs-php-mode: emacs-php-mode Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440157 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, SugarActivity, Java, Perl, Python, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, PHP, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Please use SPDX expression "GPL-3.0-or-later" b) Consider using the %forgesource macros https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ or indicate the source as: Source: https://github.com/emacs-php/php-mode/archive/%{version}/emacs-php-mode-%{version}.tar.gz see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/#_git_tags c) Please add a new entry to the changelog, you could also convert to using the %autorelease and %autochangelog macros https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/manual-changelog/ https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#changelogs d) Please change Requires: emacs(bin) >= %{_emacs_version} to Requires: emacs(bin)%{?_emacs_version: >= %{_emacs_version}} https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Versioning/#_release_tag e) dnf repoquery whatowns /usr/share/emacs Updating and loading repositories: Fedora 43 - x86_64 - Updates 100% | 2.1 MiB/s | 30.0 MiB | 00m14s Repositories loaded. emacs-filesystem-1:30.0-5.fc43.noarch Please add: Requires: emacs-filesystem to ensure directory ownership
SPEC URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/krydos/emacs-php-mode/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10202813-emacs-php-mode/emacs-php-mode.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/krydos/emacs-php-mode/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10202813-emacs-php-mode/emacs-php-mode-1.27.0-1.fc45.src.rpm Updated. Thank you for the links and especially for the "dnf repoquery whatowns". Since eask is now in f44 I only built this package for f44 and rawhide. I hope that is correct way of doing it. I'm still quite unclear on how do I take ownership of https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/emacs-php-mode. Benson, do you know if it is something that I'll be able to do after I become a packager or is there something else to do? If it's something else I should probably work on that in parallel.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10203040 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2440157-emacs-php-mode/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10203040-emacs-php-mode/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/emacs-php-mode Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names 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 does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/emacs-php-mode See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later and/or PHP License", "FSF All Permissive License". 156 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/emacs-php- mode/2440157-emacs-php-mode/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: 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. [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]: 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 26587 bytes in 1 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: 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]: 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 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). [ ]: 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]: 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 all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: emacs-php-mode-1.27.0-1.fc45.noarch.rpm emacs-php-mode-1.27.0-1.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/tmpujlui0er')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 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: 1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/emacs-php/php-mode/archive/v1.27.0/emacs-php-mode-1.27.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2ac03fe0e553d2df630b267f51069a815e430e3b73bf14f6844244ccfbb4778f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2ac03fe0e553d2df630b267f51069a815e430e3b73bf14f6844244ccfbb4778f Requires -------- emacs-php-mode (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): emacs(bin) emacs-filesystem Provides -------- emacs-php-mode: emacs-php-mode Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2440157 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, Java, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, R, PHP, C/C++, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Approved, have sponsored you into the packager group. b) To unretire the package, see: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming c) Please finish the mock reviews you had started. d) We are looking for more people to help maintain emacs, so if you want to help with that let us know.
Thank you for sponsoring me, Benson! I am very much interested in emacs maintenance, please let me know where I can be useful. I'll work on finishing the reviews I stated.
FEDORA-2026-0caef43e72 (emacs-php-mode-1.27.0-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-0caef43e72
FEDORA-2026-0caef43e72 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-2026-0caef43e72 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-0caef43e72 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.