[Bug 1901829] New: Review Request: php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills - Set of polyfills for changed PHPUnit functionality
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829
Bug ID: 1901829 Summary: Review Request: php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills - Set of polyfills for changed PHPUnit functionality Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fedora@famillecollet.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/yoast/php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills.git... SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills-0.2.0-1.remi.src... Description: Set of polyfills for changed PHPUnit functionality to allow for creating PHPUnit cross-version compatible tests.
Autoloader: /usr/share/php/Yoast/PHPUnitPolyfills/autoload.php
Fedora Account System Username: remi
---
New build dependency of php-phpmailer6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829
Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- Rawhide scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=56268454
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Please add a comment above the patch to explain why it is needed
Package approved.
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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 75 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills/review-php- yoast-phpunit-polyfills/licensecheck.txt [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. [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 40960 bytes in 3 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 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 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: [-]: 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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [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]: 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: php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills-0.2.0-1.fc34.noarch.rpm php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills-0.2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Autoloader -> Auto loader, Auto-loader, Freeloader php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autoload -> auto load, auto-load, tautology php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Autoloader -> Auto loader, Auto-loader, Freeloader php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US usr -> use, us, user php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US autoload -> auto load, auto-load, tautology php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills.src: W: strange-permission makesrc.sh 775 php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills.src: W: invalid-url Source0: php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills-0.2.0-c48e4cf.tgz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829
--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- Thanks!
SCM requests https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/31899 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/31900 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/31901
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829
--- Comment #4 from Mohan Boddu mboddu@bhujji.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-yoast-phpunit-polyfills
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-676bb4a1d0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-676bb4a1d0
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-676bb4a1d0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-676bb4a1d0 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-676bb4a1d0
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-c3ce4c38cf has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-c3ce4c38cf *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-c3ce4c38cf
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-02-05 01:32:04
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-c3ce4c38cf has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901829
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-676bb4a1d0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com