Bug 2349768

Description: Add support for Lua to Tree-sitter, an incremental parsing system for programming tools.

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8722763
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2349768-tree-sitter-lua/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08722763-tree-sitter-lua/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.

Fedora review fails when building for Rawhide, inside %check:

+ cd tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0
+ /usr/bin/make test
tree-sitter test
  chunk:
      1. ✓ chunk
      2. ✓ hash_bang_line
      3. ✓ hash_bang_line: ignored first line
      4. ✓ return_statement
  comments:
      5. ✓ comment
  expressions:
      6. ✓ nil
      7. ✓ false
      8. ✓ true
      9. ✓ number
     10. ✓ string
     11. ✓ string :: escape_sequence
     12. ✓ vararg_expression
     13. ✓ function_definition
     14. ✓ variable ::: identifier
     15. ✓ variable ::: bracket_index_expression
     16. ✓ variable ::: dot_index_expression
     17. ✓ function_call ::: bracket_index_expression | dot_index_expression
     18. ✓ function_call ::: method_index_expression
     19. ✓ parenthesized_expression
     20. ✓ table_constructor
     21. ✓ binary_expression
     22. ✓ unary_expression
  statements:
     23. ✓ empty_statement
     24. ✓ assignment_statement
     25. ✓ function_call
     26. ✓ label_statement
     27. ✓ break_statement
     28. ✓ goto_statement
     29. ✓ do_statement
     30. ✓ while_statement
     31. ✓ repeat_statement
     32. ✓ if_statement
     33. ✓ for_statement ::: for_generic_clause
     34. ✓ for_statement ::: for_numeric_clause
     35. ✓ function_declaration
     36. ✓ variable_declaration
     37. ✓ variable_declaration ::: attribute [Lua 5.4]
Total parses: 37; successful parses: 37; failed parses: 0; success percentage: 100.00%; average speed: 6208 bytes/ms
syntax highlighting:
    No language found for path `/builddir/build/BUILD/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0-build/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0/test/highlight/string.lua`
If a language should be associated with this file extension, please ensure the path to `/builddir/build/BUILD/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0-build/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0/test/highlight/string.lua` is inside one of the following directories as specified by your 'config.json':
If the directory that contains the relevant grammar for `/builddir/build/BUILD/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0-build/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0/test/highlight/string.lua` is not listed above, please add the directory to the list of directories in your config file, which you need to create by running `tree-sitter init-config`
make: *** [Makefile:112: test] Error 1

Thanks for picking up so many of these reviews.

Not sure what's broken 0.2.0, but the recently-released 0.4.0 seems to build fine.

Spec URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-lua.spec
SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-lua-0.4.0-1.fc43.src.rpm

No problem.  I'm eager to see these available in Fedora.  I will take this review.

This package is APPROVED.

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

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

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

C/C++:
[x]: 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". 51 files have unknown license.
[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.
[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 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]: 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 1235 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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:
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libtree-sitter-lua-0.4.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          libtree-sitter-lua-devel-0.4.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          tree-sitter-lua-0.4.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ 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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdczf6bp5')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

libtree-sitter-lua.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtree-sitter
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 28 filtered, 1 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

libtree-sitter-lua.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtree-sitter
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 25 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-lua/archive/v0.4.0/tree-sitter-lua-0.4.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b0977aced4a63bb75f26725787e047b8f5f4a092712c840ea7070765d4049559
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0977aced4a63bb75f26725787e047b8f5f4a092712c840ea7070765d4049559


Requires
--------
libtree-sitter-lua (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libtree-sitter
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libtree-sitter-lua-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libtree-sitter-devel
    libtree-sitter-lua(x86-64)
    libtree-sitter-lua.so.15.0()(64bit)



Provides
--------
libtree-sitter-lua:
    libtree-sitter-lua
    libtree-sitter-lua(x86-64)
    libtree-sitter-lua.so.15.0()(64bit)
    tree-sitter(lua)

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


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2349768 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, Java, Python, Ruby, fonts, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

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