https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2078911

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 --- Updated to 3.0.1

Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/doctrine/php-doctrine-persistence3.gi... SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-doctrine-persistence3-3.0.1-1.remi.src.r...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2078911

--- Comment #3 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- Updated to 3.0.3

Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/doctrine/php-doctrine-persistence3.gi... SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-doctrine-persistence3-3.0.3-1.remi.src.r...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2078911

--- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fedora@famillecollet.com --- Updated to 3.1.0

Spec URL: https://git.remirepo.net/cgit/rpms/php/doctrine/php-doctrine-persistence3.gi... SRPM URL: https://rpms.remirepo.net/SRPMS/php-doctrine-persistence3-3.1.0-1.remi.src.r...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2078911

--- Comment #6 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- 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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 100 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/php-doctrine-persistence3/2078911- php-doctrine-persistence3/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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: 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: 6.5.3@e2bc72e static analyze results in /home/fedora/php- doctrine-persistence3/2078911-php-doctrine-persistence3/phpci.log

Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s

Requires -------- php-doctrine-persistence3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (php-composer(doctrine/event-manager) >= 1 with php-composer(doctrine/event-manager) < 3) (php-composer(psr/cache) >= 1.0 with php-composer(psr/cache) < 2) php(language) php-composer(fedora/autoloader) php-pcre php-reflection php-spl

Provides -------- php-doctrine-persistence3: php-composer(doctrine/persistence) php-doctrine-persistence3

Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2078911 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, PHP Disabled plugins: Perl, Ruby, R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Java, fonts, Python, C/C++, Haskell Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

$ rpmlint php-doctrine-persistence3-3.1.0-1.fc38.noarch.rpm ============================= rpmlint session starts ============================= rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s $ rpmlint php-doctrine-persistence3-3.1.0-1.fc38.src.rpm ============================= rpmlint session starts ============================= rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1

php-doctrine-persistence3.src: W: strange-permission makesrc.sh 775 php-doctrine-persistence3.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: php-doctrine-persistence3-3.1.0-2a9c70a.tgz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s

Comments: a) Composer requires: "phpstan/phpstan": "1.8.8" "phpstan/phpstan-phpunit": "^1" "phpstan/phpstan-strict-rules": "^1.1" "doctrine/coding-standard": "^10" "vimeo/psalm": "4.29.0" The tests pass though. Assume these dependencies are for coding standards tests? b) Successfully builds: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/php-doctrine-persistence3/bui...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2078911

Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Approved.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2078911

--- Comment #10 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-doctrine-persistence3

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2078911

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-0c44c5746b has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0c44c5746b

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2078911

--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-0c44c5746b has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-0c44c5746b *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0c44c5746b

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=2078911

--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-9a560986f1 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.