Bug 2142653 - Review Request: lua-cldr - Lua interface to Unicode CLDR data
Summary: Review Request: lua-cldr - Lua interface to Unicode CLDR data
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Arthur Bols
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 2149698 2142798
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2022-11-14 18:27 UTC by Jonny Heggheim
Modified: 2022-12-15 02:16 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2022-12-07 15:27:44 UTC
Type: ---
arthur: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Github alerque cldr-lua issues 5 0 None open Include the ICU license text 2022-12-05 20:12:59 UTC

Description Jonny Heggheim 2022-11-14 18:27:12 UTC
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cldr.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cldr-0.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm

Unicode CLDR (Common Locale Data Repository) data and Lua interface.

Fedora Account System Username: jonny

Comment 1 Jonny Heggheim 2022-11-14 18:27:15 UTC
This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94176722

Comment 2 Jonny Heggheim 2022-11-14 18:38:24 UTC
A dependency for SILE https://sile-typesetter.org/

Comment 3 Jonny Heggheim 2022-11-16 12:41:14 UTC
Updated the spec file to run smoke test during %check

Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94240167

Comment 4 Arthur Bols 2022-12-05 14:04:30 UTC
Hi Jonny

Looks good except for that the ICU license file is missing. I wonder if you could leave it out since it's just generated data. If you'd like to leave it out, ask on the Legal list (legal.org) if that is possible. Otherwise please query upstream to include the ICU license text.

Package Review

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

===== 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. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-review/2142653-lua-
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[-]: 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 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 %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
[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
[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).
[?]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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]: 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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
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/alerque/cldr-lua/archive/v0.2.0/cldr-lua-0.2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9e7ac91fec23fea571d08d5663145842d463d0778967ff6f6fa29cc621647aa9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9e7ac91fec23fea571d08d5663145842d463d0778967ff6f6fa29cc621647aa9

lua-cldr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142653
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, R, fonts, SugarActivity, Haskell, Python

Comment 5 Jonny Heggheim 2022-12-05 20:13:00 UTC
I have made a issue upstream:

Might be possible to do the same as opensuse in the mean time:

> # License for data from CLDR 41
> # https://github.com/unicode-org/cldr/blob/180629dd13d7cc11ac5e5b930206ac4b8d2d49cd/unicode-license.txt
> Source1:        unicode-license.txt


I will wait for response from upstream, I think the generated data will have the same license as the original data.

Comment 6 Jonny Heggheim 2022-12-06 10:50:31 UTC
Upstream have now included the license text and made a new release.

Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cldr.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cldr-0.3.0-1.fc36.src.rpm

Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=95008805

Comment 7 Arthur Bols 2022-12-06 12:53:21 UTC
That was quick! :)


Comment 8 Jonny Heggheim 2022-12-06 13:00:10 UTC
Yes, it is nice when upstream is responsive :)

Thanks again for another review!

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-12-06 14:22:55 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-cldr

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2022-12-06 14:59:29 UTC
FEDORA-2022-dc8f7c0940 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dc8f7c0940

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2022-12-06 14:59:54 UTC
FEDORA-2022-6d67756c1c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6d67756c1c

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2022-12-07 02:50:33 UTC
FEDORA-2022-6d67756c1c 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-2022-6d67756c1c \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6d67756c1c

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2022-12-07 03:03:50 UTC
FEDORA-2022-dc8f7c0940 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 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-dc8f7c0940 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dc8f7c0940

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

Comment 14 Jonny Heggheim 2022-12-07 15:27:44 UTC
Updated for Fedora 36

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2022-12-15 01:42:30 UTC
FEDORA-2022-6d67756c1c has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2022-12-15 02:16:51 UTC
FEDORA-2022-dc8f7c0940 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

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