https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
Bug ID: 1671748 Summary: Review Request: php-pecl-pcov - Code coverage driver 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/pecl/php-pecl-pcov.git/plain/php-pecl... SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-pcov-1.0.0-2.remi.src.rpm Description: A self contained php-code-coverage compatible driver for PHP7.
Fedora Account System Username: remi
---
Alternative driver used by PHPUnit 8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- BE AWARE than fedora-review is NOT able to download to proper spec file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
--- Comment #2 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com ---
Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/pecl/php-pecl-pcov.git/plain/php-pecl... SRPM URL: http://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-pecl-pcov-1.0.0-2.remi.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- F30 scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32420853
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
Carl George carl@george.computer changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |carl@george.computer Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |carl@george.computer Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
--- Comment #4 from Carl George carl@george.computer --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: =======
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream checksum error, see source checksums below
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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. [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. [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 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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 debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Source checksums ---------------- http://pecl.php.net/get/pcov-1.0.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fd656a7566118c9030e1f89802ecd64efaabca478a6382616628906fb7ca3eee CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9e569d5cec18e3c188492ac7bd060b6f49d496a6a5d7a87e0e4ed7a521116703
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com ---
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
Indeed, 1 commit missing, Looks like I forgot to refresh the archive after uploading it to pecl.
Good catch
SRPM fixed (same URL, I donj't think this worth a release bump)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
--- Comment #6 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- FYI, the missing commit is https://github.com/krakjoe/pcov/commit/8afd1bef2cdd17e68c6b30d2e6451402064bc... which is not relevant for RPM (only for installation via the pecl command)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
Carl George carl@george.computer changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Carl George carl@george.computer --- Looks good now, PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
--- Comment #8 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com ---
Thanks for the review !
SCM requests: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9612 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9613
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
--- Comment #9 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-pecl-pcov
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- php-pecl-pcov-1.0.0-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-0a4ac3d14b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- php-pecl-pcov-1.0.0-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-0a4ac3d14b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1671748
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-02-19 14:02:18
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- php-pecl-pcov-1.0.0-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com