Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-epnf.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-epnf-0.3-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: This Lua module provides sugar for writing grammars/parsers using the LPeg library. It simplifies error reporting and AST building. Fedora Account System Username: jonny
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94197773
A dependency for SILE https://sile-typesetter.org/
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 Everything else looks good, package approved! Please fix the versioned requirement before import. 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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora- review/2142786-lua-epnf/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. [x]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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. [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/siffiejoe/lua-luaepnf/archive/v0.3/lua-luaepnf-0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 57c0ad1917e45c5677bfed0f6122da2baff98117aba05a5e987a0238600f85f9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 57c0ad1917e45c5677bfed0f6122da2baff98117aba05a5e987a0238600f85f9 Requires -------- lua-epnf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lua(abi) lua-lpeg Provides -------- lua-epnf: lua-epnf Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142786 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Java, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, R, PHP, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Arthur Bols from comment #3) > 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 > > Everything else looks good, package approved! Please fix the versioned > requirement before import. Thanks for the review! I did not know about the versioning of dependencies, I will fix that before import.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-epnf
FEDORA-2022-ccf2827b91 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ccf2827b91
FEDORA-2022-db2f32f626 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-db2f32f626
FEDORA-2022-ccf2827b91 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-ccf2827b91 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ccf2827b91 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-db2f32f626 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-db2f32f626 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-db2f32f626 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
Updated for Fedora 36
FEDORA-2022-db2f32f626 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-ccf2827b91 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.