Bug 2143563

Missing Requires for coxpcall

$ lua -e 'wheel = require "timerwheel"'
lua: /usr/share/lua/5.4/timerwheel/init.lua:33: module 'coxpcall' not found:
	no field package.preload['coxpcall']
	no file '/usr/share/lua/5.4/coxpcall.lua'
	no file '/usr/share/lua/5.4/coxpcall/init.lua'
	no file '/usr/lib64/lua/5.4/coxpcall.lua'
	no file '/usr/lib64/lua/5.4/coxpcall/init.lua'
	no file './coxpcall.lua'
	no file './coxpcall/init.lua'
	no file '/usr/lib64/lua/5.4/coxpcall.so'
	no file '/usr/lib64/lua/5.4/loadall.so'
	no file './coxpcall.so'
stack traceback:
	[C]: in function 'require'
	/usr/share/lua/5.4/timerwheel/init.lua:33: in main chunk
	[C]: in function 'require'
	(command line):1: in main chunk
	[C]: in ?

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". 21 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jonny/tmp/2143563-lua-timerwheel/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/lua/5.4/timerwheel
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/lua/5.4/timerwheel
[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.
[!]: 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 30720 bytes in 4 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 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.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


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 0.0 s



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/Tieske/timerwheel.lua/archive/refs/tags/1.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a3d0159bcf996f3c73ac20d6168d2aaedcd6877df8f7ae6a1994010ad8492784
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a3d0159bcf996f3c73ac20d6168d2aaedcd6877df8f7ae6a1994010ad8492784


Requires
--------
lua-timerwheel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    lua
    lua(abi)



Provides
--------
lua-timerwheel:
    lua-timerwheel



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143563
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, Python, Haskell, R, fonts, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH




===== Review feedback =====


[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/lua/5.4/timerwheel

rpm -qf /usr/share/lua/5.4/timerwheel
file /usr/share/lua/5.4/timerwheel is not owned by any package


[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Missing coxpcall


[!]: Package functions as described.
Due to missing Requires


[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Smoke tests with including installed files in %{buildroot} in $LUA_PATH would be great!


Other:
Line 9:
> #Source0:        %{url}/archive/v%{version}/timerwheel-%{version}.tar.gz

Comment should be removed

Line 30:
> cp -pr src/timerwheel/init.lua %{buildroot}%{lua_pkgdir}/timerwheel

Explicit copy one file, but using recursive flag. I would prefer removing flag (or copy folder recursive), to explicit declare what your intentions are.

Line 13:
> Requires:       lua

I am not sure what the best practice is, but the lua rpm macro is adding this requires lua(abi) = 5.4. Since we are installing the files into /usr/share/lua/5.4 then I think it wrong and not needed to also require (unversioned) lua.

Do you have time to have a new look?

Need another day or so.

Updated. All comments addressed.

spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lua-timerwheel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05207829-lua-timerwheel/lua-timerwheel.spec
srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lua-timerwheel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05207829-lua-timerwheel/lua-timerwheel-1.0.2-4.fc38.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5207831
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2143563-lua-timerwheel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05207831-lua-timerwheel/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #5)
> Updated. All comments addressed.
> 
> spec:
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lua-timerwheel/
> fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05207829-lua-timerwheel/lua-timerwheel.spec
> srpm:
> https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lua-timerwheel/
> fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05207829-lua-timerwheel/lua-timerwheel-1.0.2-4.fc38.
> src.rpm

LGTM, approved!

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