Bug 1902429

I will take this review.  If you are able to do a review swap, I could use a review of bug 1902434.  (It's a small header-only C++ library.)  If you are not able, let me know and I'll find somebody else.

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

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

Issues:
=======
- Please change the source URL to a version that includes a name in the tarball.
  I suggest either:
  
  https://github.com/immerrr/lua-mode/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

  or:

  https://github.com/immerrr/lua-mode/archive/v%{version}/lua-mode-%{version}.tar.gz

- Consider adding one or more of NEWS, README, and README.md to %doc.  I think
  all of them contain valuable information.

- Please ask upstream to include a license file in future releases.

- Is there any way of running a basic test of some kind in %check, just to
  verify that the package isn't completely broken?  I realize we don't have
  buttercup in Fedora.  I'm just wondering if something can be done to catch
  complete breakage.

===== 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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[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.
[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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
[?]: 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.
[!]: %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]: 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 all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: emacs-lua-20201010-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          emacs-lua-20201010-1.fc34.src.rpm
emacs-lua.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
emacs-lua.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/immerrr/lua-mode/archive/v20201010.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 954ff2856d82ddfc231da8d39b241c63bc612638d777330fa12036cdcccd2867
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 954ff2856d82ddfc231da8d39b241c63bc612638d777330fa12036cdcccd2867


Requires
--------
emacs-lua (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    emacs(bin)



Provides
--------
emacs-lua:
    emacs-lua



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1902429 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, R, fonts, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ruby, Python, Ocaml, Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

This took a little while. But it should be better now.

> - Please change the source URL to a version that includes a name in the tarball.

Done. Also updated to a snapshot with the license in there.

> - Consider adding one or more of NEWS, README, and README.md to %doc.  I think
>  all of them contain valuable information.

Done.

> - Is there any way of running a basic test of some kind in %check, just to
>  verify that the package isn't completely broken?  I realize we don't have
>  buttercup in Fedora.  I'm just wondering if something can be done to catch
>  complete breakage.

Not sure if there are any tests there that could be conceivably be done without buttercup. Although if it ever gets packaged, I would probably add a %check to run the tests.

Anyway, here are the changed things:

Spec URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/emacs-lua/emacs-lua.spec
SRPM URL: https://sham1.xyz/files/rpm-review/emacs-lua/emacs-lua-20201010-1.20210121git2d9a468.fc34.src.rpm

And here's a scratch-build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66112704

That looks great.  This package is APPROVED.

Package is in repositories now, closing.