https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1391951
François Kooman <fkooman(a)tuxed.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |fkooman(a)tuxed.net
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |fkooman(a)tuxed.net
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from François Kooman <fkooman(a)tuxed.net> ---
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