Bug 1146551 - Review Request: nex - A lexer generator for Go that is similar to Lex/Flex
Summary: Review Request: nex - A lexer generator for Go that is similar to Lex/Flex
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Florian "der-flo" Lehner
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-09-25 13:41 UTC by W. Michael Petullo
Modified: 2014-10-13 21:41 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-09-26 13:53:46 UTC
dev: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description W. Michael Petullo 2014-09-25 13:41:51 UTC
Spec URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/nex.spec
SRPM URL: https://www.flyn.org/SRPMS/nex-20140621-1.fc20.src.rpm
Nex is a lexer similar to Lex/Flex that: (1) generates Go code instead
of C code, (2) integrates with Go's Yacc instead of YACC/Bison, (3)
supports UTF-8, and (4) supports nested structural regular expressions.
Fedora Account System Username: mikep

Comment 1 Florian "der-flo" Lehner 2014-09-25 18:26:42 UTC

Just an information:

You can remove the %defattr in the %files-section.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. 
[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.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 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: 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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

[-]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
   ---> There are no tagged verions upstream.
        Latest commit is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
   ---> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7694330
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

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

Checking: nex-20140621-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
nex.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/nex
nex.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nex
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint nex
nex.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/nex
nex.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary nex
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

nex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://github.com/blynn/nex/archive/ebb7a44196ddf655bb34ab4c07ebb05d3694381f/nex-ebb7a44196ddf655bb34ab4c07ebb05d3694381f.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3542be8c43483220a21dd31f3c5dd60240695d46ec102418768ee7a222df7c29
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3542be8c43483220a21dd31f3c5dd60240695d46ec102418768ee7a222df7c29

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1146551
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby

===== Solution =====

Comment 2 W. Michael Petullo 2014-09-25 20:34:15 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: nex
Short Description: A lexer generator for Go that is similar to Lex/Flex
Upstream URL: http://www-cs-students.stanford.edu/~blynn/nex/
Owners: mikep
Branches: ff19 f20 f21 el5 el6 epel7

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-09-26 12:13:36 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Fixed branch name.

Comment 4 Fedora Update System 2014-09-26 13:51:36 UTC
nex-20140621-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2014-09-26 13:52:07 UTC
nex-20140621-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2014-09-26 13:52:53 UTC
nex-20140621-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2014-09-26 13:53:19 UTC
nex-20140621-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.

Comment 8 W. Michael Petullo 2014-09-26 13:53:46 UTC
Thank you!

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2014-10-05 08:12:36 UTC
nex-20140621-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2014-10-05 08:13:10 UTC
nex-20140621-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2014-10-12 13:55:17 UTC
nex-20140621-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2014-10-13 21:41:37 UTC
nex-20140621-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.