Spec URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-toml.spec SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-toml-0.6.0-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: Add support for TOML to Tree-sitter, an incremental parsing system for programming tools. Fedora Account System Username: mavit
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7939799 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2307527-tree-sitter-toml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07939799-tree-sitter-toml/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
I started taking a look at this but the .spec does not seem to use the macros mentioned in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Tree-sitter/ What that intentional?
Thanks for looking at this. The macros did not yet exist at the time that this review request was submitted. Updated. SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-toml-0.7.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
Created attachment 2085047 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7939799 to 8905919
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8905919 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2307527-tree-sitter-toml/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08905919-tree-sitter-toml/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
I will take this review.
This package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: 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". 45 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/2307527-tree-sitter- toml/licensecheck.txt [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 1081 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. [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]: 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-toml-0.7.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libtree-sitter-toml-devel-0.7.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm tree-sitter-toml-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/tmp0tbpf3oy')] checks: 32, packages: 3 libtree-sitter-toml.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtree-sitter 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 23 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-toml.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtree-sitter 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 19 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-toml/archive/v0.7.0/tree-sitter-toml-0.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7d52a7d4884f307aabc872867c69084d94456d8afcdc63b0a73031a8b29036dc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7d52a7d4884f307aabc872867c69084d94456d8afcdc63b0a73031a8b29036dc Requires -------- libtree-sitter-toml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtree-sitter rtld(GNU_HASH) libtree-sitter-toml-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtree-sitter-devel libtree-sitter-toml(x86-64) libtree-sitter-toml.so.14.0()(64bit) Provides -------- libtree-sitter-toml: libtree-sitter-toml libtree-sitter-toml(x86-64) libtree-sitter-toml.so.14.0()(64bit) tree-sitter(toml) libtree-sitter-toml-devel: libtree-sitter-toml-devel libtree-sitter-toml-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(tree-sitter-toml) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2307527 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Ocaml, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Python, PHP, Java, Perl, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-sitter-toml
FEDORA-2025-dcd237c1fa (tree-sitter-toml-0.7.0-2.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-dcd237c1fa
FEDORA-2025-dcd237c1fa has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-dcd237c1fa \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-dcd237c1fa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-dcd237c1fa (tree-sitter-toml-0.7.0-2.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.