Bug 1978795

This is a new requirement for neovim 0.5.0

> Source0:        https://github.com/tree-sitter/%{name}/archive/v%{version}.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

You can simplify that to https://github.com/tree-sitter/%{name}/archive/v%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz


> BuildRequires:  cargo > 1.40

Not needed/used in the build. If you intended to build rust bindings, please create a new package from https://crates.io/crates/tree-sitter according to the rust guidelines. However, that's not requires for neovim.

Following two lines are required though:
BuildRequires: gcc
BuildRequires: make

> Summary:        Asychronous I/O support library

That doesn't seem right.

Also, you don't have to create lib%{name} subpackages. That's not regulated by the guidelines, but lib%{name} pattern is mostly used when the library is an additional output of the source and the main package is a binary.

> export CFLAGS='%{optflags}'

%set_build_flags
This macro will export all required flags and save you from, for example, forgetting to set LDFLAGS required by Fedora.

> %post -n lib%{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig
> %postun -n lib%{name} -p /sbin/ldconfig

That's no longer necessary since... a while ago. If you want your spec to be compatible with el7, you can use `%{?ldconfig_scriptlets}` instead. Otherwise, please, remove this.

> %{_libdir}/libtree-sitter.so.*

Please, use part of soname in glob, i.e. `%{_libdir}/libtree-sitter.so.0*`. Rationale: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files
`

The main package could be a binary if you package the rust stuff, but I don't care about that. However it might be done later, so I've named it libtree-sitter ...

Will fix the rest.

Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/tree-sitter/tree-sitter.spec
SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-0.20.0-2.fc34.src.rpm

Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/tree-sitter/tree-sitter.spec
SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-0.20.0-3.fc34.src.rpm

Approved.
You can reset the changelog and Release before import.

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.
[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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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", "Expat License". 332 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/alebastr/fedora-
     scm/review/1978795-tree-sitter/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libtree-
     sitter , libtree-sitter-devel
[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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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]: 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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libtree-sitter-0.20.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          libtree-sitter-devel-0.20.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          tree-sitter-debugsource-0.20.0-3.fc35.x86_64.rpm
          tree-sitter-0.20.0-3.fc35.src.rpm
libtree-sitter.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libtree-sitter.so.0.0 exit.5
libtree-sitter-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Hm. I overlooked that, but

> Requires:       lib%{name} = %{version}

in libtree-sitter-devel should be stricter: `Requires:       lib%{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}`. You can fix that before import.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-sitter

The package has been imported and built long time ago.