Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-loadkit.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-loadkit-1.1.0-1.fc36.src.rpm Description: Loadkit lets you register new file extension handlers that can be opened with require, or you can just search for files of any extension using the current search path. Fedora Account System Username: jonny
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94216864
A dependency for SILE https://sile-typesetter.org/
Updated to %autochangelog and %autorelease. Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-loadkit.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-loadkit-1.1.0-1.fc38.src.rpm
Hello fellow Sal enjoyer! The review: - Don't put the README as a licence: %files %license README.md %doc README.md MIT specifies that the text of the license should be given with the source, which is not the case here, even in the README. Open a bug upstream so that they fix this. See: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Package approved. Please: - add the package to Koschei on all branches you are building - add the package to release-monitoring.org even if it does not release version Last release is 2025 and lst activity is 3 years ago. It's unlikely there will be an answer, but you should still proceed with this.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". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/lua- loadkit/review-lua-loadkit/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. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3507 bytes in 1 files. [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. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lua-loadkit-1.1.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm lua-loadkit-1.1.0-1.fc40.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/tmpi232iezx')] checks: 31, packages: 2 lua-loadkit.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/lua-loadkit/README.md /usr/share/doc/lua-loadkit/README.md ================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s =================================
Thanks again for the review! (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #4) > Hello fellow Sal enjoyer! Glad there are others here that also likes his memes :) > MIT specifies that the text of the license should be given with the source, which is not the case here, even in the README. Open a bug upstream so that they fix this. I have reported this issue upstream: https://github.com/leafo/loadkit/issues/3
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #4) > - Don't put the README as a licence: > > %files > %license README.md > %doc README.md Would it be better to leave the spec file without a %license?
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #6) > (In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #4) > > - Don't put the README as a licence: > > > > %files > > %license README.md > > %doc README.md > > Would it be better to leave the spec file without a %license? Yes indeed for now.Add the bug link in the SPEC though.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-loadkit
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #7) > Yes indeed for now.Add the bug link in the SPEC though. Upstream added the LICENSE already, adding it as Source1 and including it as %license.
FEDORA-2023-5bd5acdae6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-5bd5acdae6
FEDORA-2023-5bd5acdae6 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2023-2ba131b47f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2ba131b47f
FEDORA-2023-2ba131b47f has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.