Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lua-coxpcall/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05044800-lua-coxpcall/lua-coxpcall.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lua-coxpcall/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05044800-lua-coxpcall/lua-coxpcall-1_17_0-1.fc38.src.rpm Description: Coxpcall encapsulates the protected calls with a coroutine based loop, so errors can be handled without the usual pcall/xpcall issues with coroutines for Lua 5.1. Fedora Account System Username: fed500
Will need to unretire https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-coxpcall
I did not notice this review request before now. Adding email I just sent: You can use the following expression to convert from standard version numbers to the gittag by the following: %global gittag %(v=%{version}; echo v${v//./_}) Version: 1.17.0 Source0: %{url}/archive/%{gittag}/coxpcall-%{gittag}.tar.gz $ spectool -l lua-coxpcall.spec Source0: https://github.com/keplerproject/coxpcall/archive/v1_17_0/coxpcall-v1_17_0.tar.gz
I am doing a package review since this package was retired two years ago. > Retired Fedora packages (rawhide branch retired) require a re-review if they are retired for more than eight weeks or if there is no previous review of the package. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming
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". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jonny/tmp/2143593-lua-coxpcall/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 4 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 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). [x]: 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 ------- 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 lua-coxpcall.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.17.0-1 ['1_17_0-1.fc38', '1_17_0-1'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/keplerproject/coxpcall/archive/v1_17_0/coxpcall-1_17_0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6044f70fcc01f50cae3a191cba13c252dcf9e6f169502e3d9c4a151934c46be0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6044f70fcc01f50cae3a191cba13c252dcf9e6f169502e3d9c4a151934c46be0 Requires -------- lua-coxpcall (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): lua(abi) Provides -------- lua-coxpcall: lua-coxpcall Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143593 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Python, Java, Haskell, Perl, PHP, R, C/C++, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Following these steps after review have been approved https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retirement_Process/#claiming Consider keeping the old %changelog? - Follow the same version scheme as upstream and most other RPM packages with dot instead of underscore. Upstream also use dot for versions that are distributed to luarocks. Personal preferences ==================== - Upstream uses http://keplerproject.github.io/coxpcall/ as URL/homepage both at luarocks and in their README. - Could use the provided Makefile to install (but it lacks the preserve flag...) %install %make_install LUA_DIR=%{lua_pkgdir} - Remove the recursive flag for > cp -pr src/coxpcall.lua %{buildroot}%{lua_pkgdir}/
Thanks for your review. Kept changelog Used standard versioning scheme Have used cp -p rather than the Makefile. Hopefully most packages that rely on this can be upgraded to use what is in Lua, but this may take some time. spec: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lua-coxpcall/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05045208-lua-coxpcall/lua-coxpcall.spec srpm: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/fed500/lua-coxpcall/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/05045208-lua-coxpcall/lua-coxpcall-1.17.0-2.fc38.src.rpm
Review approved! You miss a "v" in the Source0 in front of the last %{gittag}, please fix before import. Feel free to merge the %changelog as you feel is best or start fresh with your entry when you import the package.
It is helpful to have the old history.
Could you run builds/updates?
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94790644 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49606 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49607