Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mavit/tree-sitter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08722740-tree-sitter-lua/tree-sitter-lua.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mavit/tree-sitter/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08722740-tree-sitter-lua/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: <description here> Fedora Account System Username: mavit
Description: Add support for Lua to Tree-sitter, an incremental parsing system for programming tools.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8722763 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2349768-tree-sitter-lua/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08722763-tree-sitter-lua/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.
Fedora review fails when building for Rawhide, inside %check: + cd tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0 + /usr/bin/make test tree-sitter test chunk: 1. ✓ chunk 2. ✓ hash_bang_line 3. ✓ hash_bang_line: ignored first line 4. ✓ return_statement comments: 5. ✓ comment expressions: 6. ✓ nil 7. ✓ false 8. ✓ true 9. ✓ number 10. ✓ string 11. ✓ string :: escape_sequence 12. ✓ vararg_expression 13. ✓ function_definition 14. ✓ variable ::: identifier 15. ✓ variable ::: bracket_index_expression 16. ✓ variable ::: dot_index_expression 17. ✓ function_call ::: bracket_index_expression | dot_index_expression 18. ✓ function_call ::: method_index_expression 19. ✓ parenthesized_expression 20. ✓ table_constructor 21. ✓ binary_expression 22. ✓ unary_expression statements: 23. ✓ empty_statement 24. ✓ assignment_statement 25. ✓ function_call 26. ✓ label_statement 27. ✓ break_statement 28. ✓ goto_statement 29. ✓ do_statement 30. ✓ while_statement 31. ✓ repeat_statement 32. ✓ if_statement 33. ✓ for_statement ::: for_generic_clause 34. ✓ for_statement ::: for_numeric_clause 35. ✓ function_declaration 36. ✓ variable_declaration 37. ✓ variable_declaration ::: attribute [Lua 5.4] Total parses: 37; successful parses: 37; failed parses: 0; success percentage: 100.00%; average speed: 6208 bytes/ms syntax highlighting: No language found for path `/builddir/build/BUILD/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0-build/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0/test/highlight/string.lua` If a language should be associated with this file extension, please ensure the path to `/builddir/build/BUILD/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0-build/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0/test/highlight/string.lua` is inside one of the following directories as specified by your 'config.json': If the directory that contains the relevant grammar for `/builddir/build/BUILD/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0-build/tree-sitter-lua-0.2.0/test/highlight/string.lua` is not listed above, please add the directory to the list of directories in your config file, which you need to create by running `tree-sitter init-config` make: *** [Makefile:112: test] Error 1
Thanks for picking up so many of these reviews. Not sure what's broken 0.2.0, but the recently-released 0.4.0 seems to build fine. Spec URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-lua.spec SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter-lua-0.4.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
No problem. I'm eager to see these available in Fedora. 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". 51 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 1235 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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-lua-0.4.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm libtree-sitter-lua-devel-0.4.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm tree-sitter-lua-0.4.0-1.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/tmpdczf6bp5')] checks: 32, packages: 3 libtree-sitter-lua.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtree-sitter 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 28 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-lua.x86_64: E: explicit-lib-dependency libtree-sitter 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 25 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tree-sitter-grammars/tree-sitter-lua/archive/v0.4.0/tree-sitter-lua-0.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b0977aced4a63bb75f26725787e047b8f5f4a092712c840ea7070765d4049559 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0977aced4a63bb75f26725787e047b8f5f4a092712c840ea7070765d4049559 Requires -------- libtree-sitter-lua (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libtree-sitter rtld(GNU_HASH) libtree-sitter-lua-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtree-sitter-devel libtree-sitter-lua(x86-64) libtree-sitter-lua.so.15.0()(64bit) Provides -------- libtree-sitter-lua: libtree-sitter-lua libtree-sitter-lua(x86-64) libtree-sitter-lua.so.15.0()(64bit) tree-sitter(lua) libtree-sitter-lua-devel: libtree-sitter-lua-devel libtree-sitter-lua-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(tree-sitter-lua) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2349768 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, Java, Python, Ruby, fonts, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, Haskell Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-sitter-lua