[Bug 1264191] New: Review Request: php-wikimedia-assert - An alternative to PHP's assert
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
Bug ID: 1264191 Summary: Review Request: php-wikimedia-assert - An alternative to PHP's assert Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mike@cchtml.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-wikimedia-assert.spec SRPM URL: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-1.fc22.src.rp... Description: This package provides an alternative to PHP's assert() that allows for a simple and reliable way to check preconditions and postconditions in PHP code. It was proposed as a MediaWiki RFC, but is completely generic and can be used by any PHP program or library. Fedora Account System Username: mooninite
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1230630
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230630 [Bug 1230630] MediaWiki fails with "requires the PSR-3 logging library to be present"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora@famillecollet.com
--- Comment #1 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- This library is PSR-4 compliant, so per Guidelines we have to restore a PSR-0 tree.
composer.json: "psr-4": { "Wikimedia\Assert\": "src/",
src/Assert.php namespace Wikimedia\Assert;
So have to be installed in
/usr/share/php/Wikimedia/Assert
Especially as "Assert" is quite too generic, this will avoid conflicts.
Notice: I won't do the "formal" review (because of github URL Guidelines)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
--- Comment #2 from Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com --- Installation path changed.
http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-wikimedia-assert.spec http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-2.fc22.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |puntogil@libero.it Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |puntogil@libero.it Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1264191-php-wikimedia- assert/licensecheck.txt Please, ask to upstream to include license header where are missing [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/php/Wikimedia [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/php/Wikimedia [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 [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 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 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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.
PHP: [x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files. Note: phpCompatInfo version 4.4.0 DB built Jul 20 2015 15:06:38 CEST static analyze results in /home/gil/1264191-php-wikimedia- assert/phpci.log
Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-2.fc24.noarch.rpm php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-2.fc24.src.rpm php-wikimedia-assert.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postconditions -> post conditions, post-conditions, preconditions php-wikimedia-assert.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postconditions -> post conditions, post-conditions, preconditions 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: File o directory non esistente 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- php-wikimedia-assert (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): php(language) php-spl
Provides -------- php-wikimedia-assert: php-composer(wikimedia/assert) php-wikimedia-assert
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wmde/Assert/archive/v0.2.2.tar.gz#/php-wikimedia-assert-0... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50ef517dc874aa9edb7afa8c092318d012bb84531544260291e89f4f76c779a5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50ef517dc874aa9edb7afa8c092318d012bb84531544260291e89f4f76c779a5
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1264191 --plugins PHP -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- NON blocking issues:
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1264191-php-wikimedia- assert/licensecheck.txt Please, ask to upstream to include license header where are missing
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/php/Wikimedia
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/php/Wikimedia
NOTE: "Buildarch: noarch" should be "BuildArch: noarch"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
--- Comment #5 from Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com --- Spec: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-wikimedia-assert.spec SRPM: http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-3.fc22.src.rp...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- could you take this for me https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1241447 ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- 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". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1264191-php-wikimedia- assert/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 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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.
PHP: [x]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files. Note: phpCompatInfo version 4.4.0 DB built Jul 20 2015 15:06:38 CEST static analyze results in /home/gil/1264191-php-wikimedia- assert/phpci.log
Rpmlint ------- Checking: php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-3.fc24.noarch.rpm php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-3.fc24.src.rpm php-wikimedia-assert.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postconditions -> post conditions, post-conditions, preconditions php-wikimedia-assert.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postconditions -> post conditions, post-conditions, preconditions 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: File o directory non esistente 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- php-wikimedia-assert (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): php(language) php-spl
Provides -------- php-wikimedia-assert: php-composer(wikimedia/assert) php-wikimedia-assert
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wmde/Assert/archive/v0.2.2.tar.gz#/php-wikimedia-assert-0... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50ef517dc874aa9edb7afa8c092318d012bb84531544260291e89f4f76c779a5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50ef517dc874aa9edb7afa8c092318d012bb84531544260291e89f4f76c779a5
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1264191 --plugins PHP -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4465060d5e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b4a43f2bcc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update php-wikimedia-assert' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b4a43f2bcc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update php-wikimedia-assert' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4465060d5e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-10-23 13:25:27
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1264191
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- php-wikimedia-assert-0.2.2-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla