Bug 2273973

This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Spec URL: https://pagure.io/tree-sitter-json/raw/rawhide/f/tree-sitter-json.spec
SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mavit/tree-sitter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08880737-tree-sitter-json/tree-sitter-json-0.24.8-1.fc43.src.rpm

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8881555
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273973-tree-sitter-json/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08881555-tree-sitter-json/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

It should be noted that, unless one has tree-sitter-srpm-macros installed, this happens:

$ fedora-review -b 2273973 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
INFO: Processing bugzilla bug: 2273973
INFO: Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 2273973
INFO:   --> SRPM url: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mavit/tree-sitter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08880737-tree-sitter-json/tree-sitter-json-0.24.8-1.fc43.src.rpm
INFO:   --> Spec url: https://pagure.io/tree-sitter-json/raw/rawhide/f/tree-sitter-json.spec
INFO: Using review directory: /home/jamesjer/2273973-tree-sitter-json
INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files
error: line 7: Unknown buildsystem: tree_sitter
ERROR: "Can't parse specfile: can't parse specfile\n" (logs in /home/jamesjer/.cache/fedora-review.log)
Exception ignored on flushing sys.stdout:
AttributeError: '_Null' object has no attribute 'flush'

I imagine it will be the same for all of the other tree-sitter parser reviews.

Also, the Spec URL above seems to point to a different spec file than the one in the SRPM.

I will take this review.

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

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

Issues:
=======
- The devel subpackage installs a file into /usr/include/tree_sitter, but does
  not own the directory.  The devel subpackage should either own that directory,
  or have "Requires: libtree-sitter-devel", to add a dependency on the existing
  package that owns the directory.

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

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: Package contains no static executables.
[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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 43 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/tree_sitter
[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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1004 bytes in 1 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: 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.
[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]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libtree-sitter-json-0.24.8-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          libtree-sitter-json-devel-0.24.8-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          tree-sitter-json-0.24.8-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.6.1
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpdxmlkama')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

tree-sitter-json.spec: W: no-%prep-section
tree-sitter-json.spec: W: no-%install-section
tree-sitter-json.spec: W: no-%check-section
tree-sitter-json.spec: W: no-%build-section
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-json/archive/v0.24.8/tree-sitter-json-0.24.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : acf6e8362457e819ed8b613f2ad9a0e1b621a77556c296f3abea58f7880a9213
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : acf6e8362457e819ed8b613f2ad9a0e1b621a77556c296f3abea58f7880a9213


Requires
--------
libtree-sitter-json (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libtree-sitter-json-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libtree-sitter-json(x86-64)
    libtree-sitter-json.so.14.0()(64bit)



Provides
--------
libtree-sitter-json:
    libtree-sitter-json
    libtree-sitter-json(x86-64)
    libtree-sitter-json.so.14.0()(64bit)
    tree-sitter(json)

libtree-sitter-json-devel:
    libtree-sitter-json-devel
    libtree-sitter-json-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(tree-sitter-json)



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/jamesjer/2273973-tree-sitter-json/srpm/tree-sitter-json.spec	2025-04-11 11:00:37.821962183 -0600
+++ /home/jamesjer/2273973-tree-sitter-json/srpm-unpacked/tree-sitter-json.spec	2025-04-08 18:00:00.000000000 -0600
@@ -1,2 +1,12 @@
+## START: Set by rpmautospec
+## (rpmautospec version 0.7.3)
+## RPMAUTOSPEC: autorelease, autochangelog
+%define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua:
+    release_number = 1;
+    base_release_number = tonumber(rpm.expand("%{?-b*}%{!?-b:1}"));
+    print(release_number + base_release_number - 1);
+}%{?-e:.%{-e*}}%{?-s:.%{-s*}}%{!?-n:%{?dist}}
+## END: Set by rpmautospec
+
 Name:           tree-sitter-json
 Version:        0.24.8
@@ -10,3 +20,21 @@
 
 %changelog
-%{autochangelog}
+## START: Generated by rpmautospec
+* Wed Apr 09 2025 Peter Oliver <git.uk> - 0.24.8-1
+- Update to version 0.24.8.  Use macros.
+
+* Thu Oct 10 2024 Peter Oliver <git.uk> - 0.21.0-3
+- Run tests.
+
+* Thu Oct 10 2024 Peter Oliver <git.uk> - 0.21.0-2
+- Explicit filenames
+
+* Mon Apr 08 2024 Peter Oliver <git.uk> - 0.21.0-1
+- Update to version 0.21.0.
+
+* Sat Aug 05 2023 Peter Oliver <git.uk> - 0.20.0-0.2
+- Prevent mangled URL in .pc file.
+
+* Sun Apr 16 2023 Peter Oliver <git.uk> - 0.20.0-0.1
+- Initial package.
+## END: Generated by rpmautospec


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2273973 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ruby, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, Perl, R, Ocaml, Java
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Thanks for the review.

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #4)

> It should be noted that, unless one has tree-sitter-srpm-macros installed,
> this happens:
> ...
> error: line 7: Unknown buildsystem: tree_sitter

From Fedora 42, tree-sitter-srpm-macros is pulled in by redhat-rpm-macros, so this niggle should go away in time.

> Also, the Spec URL above seems to point to a different spec file than the
> one in the SRPM.

It looks like Copr has mangled the SRPM to handle %autorelease and %autochangelog.  Here it is raw:

SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-json-0.24.8-1.fc43.src.rpm

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #6)

> - The devel subpackage installs a file into /usr/include/tree_sitter, but
> does
>   not own the directory.  The devel subpackage should either own that
> directory,
>   or have "Requires: libtree-sitter-devel", to add a dependency on the
> existing
>   package that owns the directory.

This should be fixed by tree-sitter-srpm-macros 0.2.2, which is currently building for rawhide...

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8900106
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2273973-tree-sitter-json/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08900106-tree-sitter-json/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

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

(In reply to Peter Oliver from comment #7)
> It looks like Copr has mangled the SRPM to handle %autorelease and
> %autochangelog.  Here it is raw:

Hmmm, no, I'm used to seeing %autorelease/%autochangelog differences.  The first time I looked at the spec file, it was much longer and had %ldconfig_scriptlets in it.  That doesn't seem to be the case now so ... (shrug).

> This should be fixed by tree-sitter-srpm-macros 0.2.2, which is currently
> building for rawhide...

Yes, that looks good.  This package is APPROVED.

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-sitter-json