Bug 2274382 - Review Request: tree-sitter-yaml - YAML grammar for Tree-sitter
Summary: Review Request: tree-sitter-yaml - YAML grammar for Tree-sitter
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jerry James
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 2258924
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-04-10 17:41 UTC by Peter Oliver
Modified: 2025-06-08 23:32 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2025-06-08 23:32:52 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
loganjerry: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Peter Oliver 2024-04-10 17:41:00 UTC
Spec URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-yaml.spec
SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-yaml-0.6.0-1.fc41.src.rpm
Description: YAML grammar for Tree-sitter
Fedora Account System Username: mavit

Comment 1 Package Review 2025-04-11 00:45:20 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 3 Fedora Review Service 2025-04-11 12:25:13 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8891101
(failed)

Build log:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2274382-tree-sitter-yaml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08891101-tree-sitter-yaml/builder-live.log.gz

Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.

- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network
  unavailability), please ignore it.
- If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they
  are listed in the "Depends On" field


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Comment 4 Jerry James 2025-06-05 19:38:19 UTC
The SRPM URL appears to be incorrect.  I get an HTTP 404 trying to download it.

Comment 5 Peter Oliver 2025-06-06 16:15:30 UTC
Looks like Copr has garbage collected the SRPM.  Here it is:

SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-yaml-0.7.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Spec URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-yaml.spec

Comment 6 Jerry James 2025-06-06 20:32:50 UTC
Great, I will take this review.

Comment 7 Jerry James 2025-06-06 20:58:27 UTC
This package is APPROVED.  Please consider updating to version 0.7.1 (and dropping the patch) before importing.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues:
=======
- This is version 0.7.0, but version 0.7.1 is available, and includes the
  stdint.h patch.  Having the latest version is a SHOULD rather than a MUST,
  so this is not a deal-breaker.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 73 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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.
[x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 1083 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: libtree-sitter-yaml-0.7.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          libtree-sitter-yaml-devel-0.7.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          tree-sitter-yaml-0.7.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmplrbbtlnb')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

tree-sitter-yaml.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: 18.patch
libtree-sitter-yaml.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtree-sitter
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings, 24 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 2

libtree-sitter-yaml.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtree-sitter
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 21 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-yaml/archive/v0.7.0/tree-sitter-yaml-0.7.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8182760587f14d5131161dee3605613ccebe86062909f0879edf63b4bdd99d44
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8182760587f14d5131161dee3605613ccebe86062909f0879edf63b4bdd99d44


Requires
--------
libtree-sitter-yaml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libtree-sitter
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

libtree-sitter-yaml-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/pkg-config
    libtree-sitter-devel
    libtree-sitter-yaml(x86-64)
    libtree-sitter-yaml.so.14.0()(64bit)



Provides
--------
libtree-sitter-yaml:
    libtree-sitter-yaml
    libtree-sitter-yaml(x86-64)
    libtree-sitter-yaml.so.14.0()(64bit)
    tree-sitter(yaml)

libtree-sitter-yaml-devel:
    libtree-sitter-yaml-devel
    libtree-sitter-yaml-devel(x86-64)
    pkgconfig(tree-sitter-yaml)


Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2274382 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, PHP, fonts, Java, Ruby, SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Haskell, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

Comment 8 Peter Oliver 2025-06-06 23:36:44 UTC
Thanks again for the review.  Version 0.7.1 doesn't install because of https://github.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-yaml/pull/27, so let's skip it and wait for 0.7.2.

Comment 9 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2025-06-06 23:37:35 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-sitter-yaml


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.