Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cassowary.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cassowary-2.3.2-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: This is a Lua port of the Cassowary constraint solving toolkit. It allows you to use Lua to solve algebraic equations and inequalities and find the values of unknown variables which satisfy those inequalities. Fedora Account System Username: jonny
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94137272
Thanks for starting the review, this is my first Lua package and its a dependency for SILE https://sile-typesetter.org/
I updated the spec-file and the srpm. The URL is still the same.
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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/lua-cassowary/2142399-lua- cassowary/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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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 ------- 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 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sile-typesetter/cassowary.lua/archive/v2.3.2/cassowary.lua-2.3.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 20fe7309f59004ce59e6c65d69ed9993de907267fd0314fc224f40e017d59798 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 20fe7309f59004ce59e6c65d69ed9993de907267fd0314fc224f40e017d59798 Requires -------- lua-cassowary (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lua(abi) lua-penlight Provides -------- lua-cassowary: lua-cassowary Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142399 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, R, Ocaml, Ruby, Python, Perl, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) A number of the other lua packages use Busted ( https://github.com/lunarmodules/busted) for testing. Maybe it is worth packaging this? Dependencies are: copas - not packaged https://github.com/lunarmodules/copas uses https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lua-socket/lua-socket and https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lua-sec/lua-sec lua-ev - not packaged https://github.com/brimworks/lua-ev moonscript - pacakged https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lua-moonscript/lua-moonscript b) If problematic to package, can you add a smoke test, for example based on one of the test programs or the program in the README: cassowary = require("cassowary") local solver = cassowary.SimplexSolver(); local x = cassowary.Variable({ name = 'x' }); local y = cassowary.Variable({ name = 'y' }); solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Inequality(x, "<=", y)) solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Equation(y, cassowary.plus(x, 3))) solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Equation(x, 10, cassowary.Strength.weak)) solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Equation(y, 10, cassowary.Strength.weak)) print("x = "..x.value) print("y = "..y.value)
Please also update the license, it should be Apache-2.0 see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) > 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 28 > files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/lua-cassowary/2142399-lua- > cassowary/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 10240 bytes in 1 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 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 > ------- > 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 0.3 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/sile-typesetter/cassowary.lua/archive/v2.3.2/cassowary. > lua-2.3.2.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 20fe7309f59004ce59e6c65d69ed9993de907267fd0314fc224f40e017d59798 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 20fe7309f59004ce59e6c65d69ed9993de907267fd0314fc224f40e017d59798 > > > Requires > -------- > lua-cassowary (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > lua(abi) > lua-penlight > > > > Provides > -------- > lua-cassowary: > lua-cassowary > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142399 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api > Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, R, Ocaml, Ruby, Python, Perl, Java, Haskell, > SugarActivity, PHP > Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH > > Comments: > a) A number of the other lua packages use Busted ( > https://github.com/lunarmodules/busted) for testing. Maybe it is worth > packaging this? Dependencies are: > copas - not packaged https://github.com/lunarmodules/copas uses > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lua-socket/lua-socket and > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lua-sec/lua-sec > lua-ev - not packaged https://github.com/brimworks/lua-ev > moonscript - pacakged > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lua-moonscript/lua-moonscript > > b) If problematic to package, can you add a smoke test, for example based on > one of the test programs or the program in the README: > cassowary = require("cassowary") > local solver = cassowary.SimplexSolver(); > local x = cassowary.Variable({ name = 'x' }); > local y = cassowary.Variable({ name = 'y' }); > solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Inequality(x, "<=", y)) > solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Equation(y, cassowary.plus(x, 3))) > solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Equation(x, 10, cassowary.Strength.weak)) > solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Equation(y, 10, cassowary.Strength.weak)) > print("x = "..x.value) > print("y = "..y.value) I updated the package to include this smoke test, it builds successfull https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94239318 It would be great to have busted in our repository, but I do not think my schedule allows making the packages.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #5) > Please also update the license, it should be Apache-2.0 see > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ > LicensingGuidelines/#_valid_license_short_names Thanks, I started with Apache-2.0, but rpmlint gave warnings, but I see there is a discussion on the devel mailing list. Have uploaded spec file and srpm file with all changes.
Ok. Will check. It seems lua-ev should build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/lua-ev/build/5043279/
Can you also change BuildRequires: lua-rpm-macros lua-srpm-macros to BuildRequires: lua-devel As lua-devel will bring in lua-rpm-macros, lua-srpm-macros and lua, you can also remove BuildRequires: lua
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #9) > Can you also change > BuildRequires: lua-rpm-macros lua-srpm-macros > to > BuildRequires: lua-devel > As lua-devel will bring in lua-rpm-macros, lua-srpm-macros and lua, > you can also remove > BuildRequires: lua Nice, I did not know about that, uploaded new versions of srpm and spec files. Will update other lua packages in review.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #8) > Ok. Will check. It seems lua-ev should build: > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/fed500/lua-ev/build/5043279/ Great, let me know when you are ready for package review!
Thanks for the updates. Approved.
(In reply to Benson Muite from comment #12) > Thanks for the updates. Approved. Thanks for the review. Waiting for https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49173
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-cassowary
FEDORA-2022-ef5d0ec525 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ef5d0ec525
FEDORA-2022-ef5d0ec525 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-ef5d0ec525 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ef5d0ec525 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ef5d0ec525 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.