Bug 555986 - Review Request: php-phpunit-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit tests
Summary: Review Request: php-phpunit-PHPUnit - Regression testing framework for unit t...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Christof Damian
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 551940
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-01-16 09:52 UTC by Remi Collet
Modified: 2010-05-18 18:42 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-01-26 06:43:28 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
christof: fedora-review+
dennis: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)
diff between the spec file of the old package in rawhide and the new package (2.73 KB, text/plain)
2010-01-23 13:24 UTC, Christof Damian
no flags Details

Description Remi Collet 2010-01-16 09:52:53 UTC
Spec URL: http://remi.fedorapeople.org/php-phpunit-PHPUnit.spec
SRPM URL: http://remi.fedorapeople.org/php-phpunit-PHPUnit-3.4.7-1.fc8.src.rpm
Description: 
PHPUnit is a family of PEAR packages that supports the development of
object-oriented PHP applications using the concepts and methods of Agile
Software Development, Extreme Programming, Test-Driven Development and
Design-by-Contract Development by providing an elegant and robust framework
for the creation, execution and analysis of Unit Tests.


----------
This is not a new package, but the rename of php-pear-PHPUnit (available in Fedora for a very long time, but switch from pear to phpunit channel never managed)

rpmlint is silent
koji scratch build : http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1925885

Comment 1 Christof Damian 2010-01-23 13:24:03 UTC
Created attachment 386327 [details]
diff between the spec file of the old package in rawhide and the new package

Comment 2 Christof Damian 2010-01-23 13:42:00 UTC
As it is just a rename of a package it already follows the guidelines, but I did a full review anyway because of the version change.

I have also attached a diff between the spec file of the old package in rawhide and the new package.

MUST:

OK: package has the correct Provides and Obsolete to replace the old package as stated in the Packaging:Naming Guidelines

OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. 

1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines 
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines 
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines 
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
OK: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. 
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. 
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. 
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. 
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD:

OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 
OK: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

Package installs fine with yum on Fedora 12 and replaces the old package:

===============================================================================
 Package  Arch   Version         Repository                                Size
================================================================================
Installing:
 php-phpunit-PHPUnit
          noarch 3.4.7-1.fc12    /php-phpunit-PHPUnit-3.4.7-1.fc12.noarch 2.0 M
     replacing  php-pear-PHPUnit.noarch 3.3.17-1.fc12

Installing for dependencies:
 php-soap x86_64 5.3.1-1.fc12    updates                                  135 k

I also tested it on the sample tests.

APPROVED

Comment 3 Remi Collet 2010-01-23 14:43:58 UTC
Thanks for the review

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: php-phpunit-PHPUnit
Short Description: Regression testing framework for unit tests
Owners: remi
Branches: 
InitialCC:

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2010-01-24 17:33:23 UTC
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

Comment 5 Remi Collet 2010-05-15 06:09:03 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: php-phpunit-PHPUnit
New Branches: EL-6
Owners: remi

Comment 6 Dennis Gilmore 2010-05-18 18:42:21 UTC
CVS Done


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