Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-fluent.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-fluent-0.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: A Lua implementation of Project Fluent, a localization paradigm designed to unleash the entire expressive power of natural language translations. Fluent is a family of localization specifications, implementations and good practices developed by Mozilla who extracted parts of their 'l20n' solution (used in Firefox and other apps) into a re-usable specification. Fedora Account System Username: jonny
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94198724
A dependency for SILE https://sile-typesetter.org/
Updated the srpm and spec file with smoketests
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", "MIT License". 226 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/lua-fluent/2142798-lua- fluent/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 20480 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 ------- Checking: lua-fluent-0.2.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm lua-fluent-0.2.0-1.fc39.src.rpm ======================================================= 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpek93wy_p')] checks: 31, packages: 2 ======================== 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.9 s ======================== 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 0.4 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/alerque/fluent-lua/archive/v0.2.0/fluent-lua-0.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2458b80c8dad59c86de459bb7b4deef285d196b54ab449e73a8b8814f9822633 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2458b80c8dad59c86de459bb7b4deef285d196b54ab449e73a8b8814f9822633 Requires -------- lua-fluent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lua(abi) lua-cldr lua-epnf lua-penlight Provides -------- lua-fluent: lua-fluent Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142798 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, C/C++, fonts, Python, Ruby, Ocaml, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, R, Java Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Comments: a) In the files section rather than %{lua_pkgdir}/fluent/ it would be preferable to have %dir %{lua_pkgdir}/fluent %{lua_pkgdir}/fluent/*.lua as type of content is clearer. Not essential, just a preference. b) Smoke test seems ok Package approved. Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215710 would be appreciated if time allows.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-fluent
Thanks for the review! > Review of https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2215710 would be appreciated if time allows. Of course, I will do the review.
FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e
FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f
FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-af5bc2dd8e has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-d94ec71c8f has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.