Koji scratch build https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=63189132

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
     attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain". 71
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/gwyn/fedora/git/1936055-php-pecl-xmlrpc/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 10240 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 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]: %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 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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).
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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.

PHP:
[!]: Run phpci static analyze on all php files.
     Note: phpcompatinfo not found. Install php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo
     package to get a more comprehensive php review.
     See: url: undefined


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: php-pecl-xmlrpc-1.0.0~rc2-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          php-pecl-xmlrpc-debuginfo-1.0.0~rc2-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          php-pecl-xmlrpc-debugsource-1.0.0~rc2-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          php-pecl-xmlrpc-1.0.0~rc2-2.fc35.src.rpm
php-pecl-xmlrpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unbundled -> bundled, unbounded, bundle
php-pecl-xmlrpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US src -> arc, sec, sic
php-pecl-xmlrpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unbundled -> bundled, unbounded, bundle
php-pecl-xmlrpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US src -> arc, sec, sic
php-pecl-xmlrpc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libxmlrpc 
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: php-pecl-xmlrpc-debuginfo-1.0.0~rc2-2.fc35.x86_64.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
php-pecl-xmlrpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unbundled -> bundled, unbounded, bundle
php-pecl-xmlrpc.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US src -> arc, sec, sic
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Unversioned so-files
--------------------
php-pecl-xmlrpc: /usr/lib64/php-zts/modules/xmlrpc.so
php-pecl-xmlrpc: /usr/lib64/php/modules/xmlrpc.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://pecl.php.net/get/xmlrpc-1.0.0RC2.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9800a5f627c24e2f6acf61f816a54c66e9fdffbfabc598ffc0f0f1165d3ef041
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9800a5f627c24e2f6acf61f816a54c66e9fdffbfabc598ffc0f0f1165d3ef041


Requires
--------
php-pecl-xmlrpc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    config(php-pecl-xmlrpc)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libxml2.so.2()(64bit)
    php(api)
    php(zend-abi)
    php-xml(x86-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

php-pecl-xmlrpc-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

php-pecl-xmlrpc-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
php-pecl-xmlrpc:
    config(php-pecl-xmlrpc)
    php-pecl(xmlrpc)
    php-pecl(xmlrpc)(x86-64)
    php-pecl-xmlrpc
    php-pecl-xmlrpc(x86-64)
    php-xmlrpc
    php-xmlrpc(x86-64)

php-pecl-xmlrpc-debuginfo:
    debuginfo(build-id)
    php-pecl-xmlrpc-debuginfo
    php-pecl-xmlrpc-debuginfo(x86-64)

php-pecl-xmlrpc-debugsource:
    php-pecl-xmlrpc-debugsource
    php-pecl-xmlrpc-debugsource(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1936055
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: PHP, Shell-api, C/C++, Generic
Disabled plugins: Java, R, Python, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH


I'd like to see phpci added but since the test suite works I'm not concerned.  Thank you for packaging this so quickly, thoroughly, and well.

APPROVED.

> I'd like to see phpci added but since the test suite works I'm not concerned. 

phpci (php-bartlett-PHP-CompatInfo) is a static analyser for PHP library, so doesn't make sense for a C extension


Thanks for the review


SCL request

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32669

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/php-pecl-xmlrpc

Ah, that makes sense.

Built in rawhide

https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-50644c9763