https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391951 François Kooman <fkooman@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fkooman@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |fkooman@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from François Kooman <fkooman@xxxxxxxxx> --- Notes in addition to the ones "inline": - gh_date in the spec file seems wrong, release 1.12.4 was released much more recent than the indicated gh_date. - Group: Development/Libraries, not a library, maybe Development/Tools is more appropriate - There is still some remirepo stuff in the spec file regarding running tests, is this intended? Probably not needed for Fedora? - rpmlint complains about script intepreter: php-cs-fixer.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/php-cs-fixer /usr/bin/env php I guess this is a false positive? - Maybe the self-updater should be disabled? Although it does detect it only works for PHAR and then stops with error, so I guess it is fine like this :) - rpmlint: php-cs-fixer.src: W: strange-permission makesrc.sh 775, I guess it expects 755 instead... Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 412 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/1391951-php-cs-fixer/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required **NOTE**: can be removed, but maybe not for EPEL5/6? [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed **NOTE**: this is also needed for EPEL5/6? [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 5 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: 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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed **NOTE**: this is also needed for EPEL5/6? [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required **NOTE**: this is also needed for EPEL5/6? [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: 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. PHP: [x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files. Note: phpCompatInfo version 5.0.1 DB version 1.14.0 built Oct 17 2016 08:05:57 CEST static analyze results in /home/fedora/1391951-php-cs- fixer/phpci.log Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-cs-fixer-1.12.4-1.fc26.noarch.rpm php-cs-fixer-1.12.4-1.fc26.src.rpm php-cs-fixer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter php-cs-fixer.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/php-cs-fixer /usr/bin/env php php-cs-fixer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary php-cs-fixer php-cs-fixer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter php-cs-fixer.src: W: strange-permission makesrc.sh 775 php-cs-fixer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: php-cs-fixer-1.12.4-c5a9d66.tgz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- php-cs-fixer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US linter -> liner, liter, inter php-cs-fixer.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/php-cs-fixer /usr/bin/env php php-cs-fixer.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary php-cs-fixer 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- php-cs-fixer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env php(language) php-cli php-composer(fedora/autoloader) php-composer(sebastian/diff) php-composer(symfony/console) php-composer(symfony/event-dispatcher) php-composer(symfony/filesystem) php-composer(symfony/finder) php-composer(symfony/process) php-composer(symfony/stopwatch) php-dom php-json php-pcre php-phar php-reflection php-spl php-tokenizer php-xml Provides -------- php-cs-fixer: php-composer(friendsofphp/php-cs-fixer) php-cs-fixer Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1391951 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx