Bug 2142798

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94198724

A dependency for SILE https://sile-typesetter.org/

Updated the srpm and spec file with smoketests

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". 226 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/lua-fluent/2142798-lua-
     fluent/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 -   (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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).
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: lua-fluent-0.2.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
          lua-fluent-0.2.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
======================================================= 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpek93wy_p')]
checks: 31, packages: 2

======================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.9 s ========================




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 0.4 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/alerque/fluent-lua/archive/v0.2.0/fluent-lua-0.2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2458b80c8dad59c86de459bb7b4deef285d196b54ab449e73a8b8814f9822633
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2458b80c8dad59c86de459bb7b4deef285d196b54ab449e73a8b8814f9822633


Requires
--------
lua-fluent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    lua(abi)
    lua-cldr
    lua-epnf
    lua-penlight



Provides
--------
lua-fluent:
    lua-fluent



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142798
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, fonts, Python, Ruby, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Comments:
a) In the files section rather than
%{lua_pkgdir}/fluent/
it would be preferable to have
%dir %{lua_pkgdir}/fluent
%{lua_pkgdir}/fluent/*.lua
as type of content is clearer. Not essential, just a preference.
b) Smoke test seems ok

Package approved.

Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215710 would be appreciated if time allows.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-fluent

Thanks for the review!

> Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215710 would be appreciated if time allows.

Of course, I will do the review.

FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e

FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f

FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.