Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cosmo.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cosmo-16.06.04-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Cosmo is a "safe templates" engine. It allows you to fill nested templates, providing many of the advantages of Turing-complete template engines, without without the downside of allowing arbitrary code in the templates. Fedora Account System Username: jonny
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94180175
A dependency for SILE https://sile-typesetter.org/
I think it's a bit strange to include a separate license file. In this case it would be fine to include the cosmo.md file in %license. It's a bit cumbersome that the file would be missing from %doc. You could create a symlink so that the %license file points to cosmo.md in %doc. Please change the versioned requires for lua-lpeg to unversioned. The oldest version available is 0.12 in el7, so the requirement would always be met. See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_dependencies Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora- review/2142671-lua-cosmo/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 30720 bytes in 3 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: [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. See remark above [-]: 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]: 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 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mascarenhas/cosmo/archive/v16.06.04/cosmo-16.06.04.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 86d17aea5080a90671d965cffeb9b104c19e0e1ea55c08687c0924c4512b52b1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 86d17aea5080a90671d965cffeb9b104c19e0e1ea55c08687c0924c4512b52b1 Requires -------- lua-cosmo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lua(abi) lua-lpeg Provides -------- lua-cosmo: lua-cosmo Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142671 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Updated the spec+srpm with same URL: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cosmo.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cosmo-16.06.04-1.fc36.src.rpm I was not sure how to include the %license, I probably started on including a separate license file and probably found out later that it was inlined in the documentation. * Changed lua-lpeg to unversioned. * Removed the extra %license * Tidy the %docs The cosmo.md file is included twice, I am not sure how the %doc macro works, it should be possible to symlink instead to save 18KB. Looks like this now: $ rpm -qlv lua-cosmo drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Dec 5 21:50 /usr/share/doc/lua-cosmo -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 923 Jun 4 2016 /usr/share/doc/lua-cosmo/README -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18337 Jun 4 2016 /usr/share/doc/lua-cosmo/cosmo.md -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1824 Jun 4 2016 /usr/share/doc/lua-cosmo/sample.lua drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Dec 5 21:50 /usr/share/licenses/lua-cosmo -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 18337 Jun 4 2016 /usr/share/licenses/lua-cosmo/cosmo.md drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Dec 5 21:50 /usr/share/lua/5.4/cosmo -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 10172 Dec 5 21:50 /usr/share/lua/5.4/cosmo.lua -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4337 Dec 5 21:50 /usr/share/lua/5.4/cosmo/fill.lua -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5049 Dec 5 21:50 /usr/share/lua/5.4/cosmo/grammar.lua $ ls -lah /usr/share/licenses/lua-cosmo/cosmo.md /usr/share/doc/lua-cosmo/cosmo.md .rw-r--r--. root root 18 KB Sat Jun 4 20:59:21 2016 /usr/share/licenses/lua-cosmo/cosmo.md .rw-r--r--. root root 18 KB Sat Jun 4 20:59:21 2016 /usr/share/doc/lua-cosmo/cosmo.md
Thanks! %doc and %license just copy the files. You could do something like this: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/lua-cosmo.spec I noticed you've removed the index.html from %doc, was this by mistake? I believe it's redundant so it should be fine to leave it out.
> You could do something like this: https://principis.fedorapeople.org/lua-cosmo.spec I feel that is getting too hackish and harder to maintain. > ln -s ../../doc/%{name}/cosmo.md LICENSE.md For me it does not make sense why %buildroot is not used in the %install section. The doc location is now hard-coded instead of a macro. If the user install with --nodocs flag, then the %license link is dangling. > I noticed you've removed the index.html from %doc, was this by mistake? I believe it's redundant so it should be fine to leave it out. I had a look and noticed that they were the "same", but after some thinking I lean towards that it is best to do the same as opensuse: > %license %{luarocks_treedir}/%{mod_name}/%{rock_version}/doc/cosmo.md > %docdir %{luarocks_treedir}/%{mod_name}/%{rock_version}/doc https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/devel:languages:lua/lua-cosmo/lua-cosmo.spec?expand=1 Include all files documentation in the doc folder, since upstream have included it in their repo and published it on luarocks.
Updated the spec+srpm: Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cosmo.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-cosmo-16.06.04-1.fc36.src.rpm
You right, that hadn't occurred to me. I asked for feedback on #fedora-devel because I wasn't quite sure what to do with it, but I hadn't received an answer yet. It's only a small nitpick anyway. Everything looks good, Package APPROVED.
I think it is good with feedback and discussion on corner cases where we can try to find the best solution. Again, thanks for all the reviews.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-cosmo
FEDORA-2022-d6f4177eba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d6f4177eba
FEDORA-2022-6109861645 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6109861645
FEDORA-2022-6109861645 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-2022-6109861645 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6109861645 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-d6f4177eba 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-d6f4177eba \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-d6f4177eba See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
Updated for Fedora 36
FEDORA-2022-6109861645 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-d6f4177eba has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.