Spec URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-c.spec SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-c-0.21.4-1.fc42.src.rpm Description: C grammar for Tree-sitter Fedora Account System Username: mavit
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7939804 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2307561-tree-sitter-c/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07939804-tree-sitter-c/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 does not use "BuildSystem: tree_sitter". Is that intentional?
This review predates those macros. I have update the spec file to use them. SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-c-0.23.5-1.fc43.src.rpm
Thank you. Please consider updating to version 0.24.1 before importing. This package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - The spec file is for version 0.23.5, but version 0.24.1 is the latest version. Having the latest version is a SHOULD, not 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", "BSD 3-Clause License". 62 files have unknown license. The file licensed with BSD-3-Clause is an example file that is not included in any binary RPM, so MIT is correct. [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 1055 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. [-]: 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-c-0.23.5-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libtree-sitter-c-devel-0.23.5-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm tree-sitter-c-0.23.5-1.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/tmpgg1fdh2i')] checks: 32, packages: 3 libtree-sitter-c.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-c.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtree-sitter 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 20 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-c/archive/v0.23.5/tree-sitter-c-0.23.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f7e50412230150ce514efcccb962ff9b452d9f358e0a2c89f2a0a0256c2ec886 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f7e50412230150ce514efcccb962ff9b452d9f358e0a2c89f2a0a0256c2ec886 Requires -------- libtree-sitter-c (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtree-sitter rtld(GNU_HASH) libtree-sitter-c-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtree-sitter-c(x86-64) libtree-sitter-c.so.14.0()(64bit) libtree-sitter-devel Provides -------- libtree-sitter-c: libtree-sitter-c libtree-sitter-c(x86-64) libtree-sitter-c.so.14.0()(64bit) tree-sitter(c) libtree-sitter-c-devel: libtree-sitter-c-devel libtree-sitter-c-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(tree-sitter-c) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2307561 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, PHP, fonts, Python, Haskell, Ruby, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-sitter-c
FEDORA-2025-4f2e62da9b (tree-sitter-c-0.24.1-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4f2e62da9b
FEDORA-2025-4f2e62da9b 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-2025-4f2e62da9b \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-4f2e62da9b See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2025-4f2e62da9b (tree-sitter-c-0.24.1-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.