Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter0.25.spec SRPM URL: https://mavit.fedorapeople.org/rpm/tree-sitter0.25-0.25.10-1.fc45.src.rpm Description: Incremental parsing system for programming tools, 0.25 version Fedora Account System Username: mavit
It turns out that Tree-sitter 0.26 has compatibility problems with Emacs 30 beyond simply renaming ts_language_version to ts_language_abi_version. I am minded to wait for Emacs 31 before trying further. With that in mind, I think we should introduce a compatibility package, so that Emacs and Rizin can continue using Tree-sitter 0.25 for now, and Neovim can move forward with 0.26.
Approved, but please fix the description, see below! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [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* Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016)". 471 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/asn/workspace/pkg/fedora/REVIEW/2463171-tree- sitter0.25/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/include/tree_sitter(libtree-sitter-devel), /usr/share/tree- sitter(libtree-sitter), /usr/share/tree-sitter/queries(libtree-sitter) [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [x]: 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 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 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 1146 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libtree- sitter0.25 [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. [-]: %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. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [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-sitter0.25-0.25.10-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm libtree-sitter0.25-devel-0.25.10-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm tree-sitter0.25-0.25.10-1.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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/tmpnrje_gfx')] checks: 32, packages: 3 libtree-sitter0.25-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Libraries and header files for developing applications that use libtree-sitter0.25. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 21 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/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-sitter0.25-devel.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long Libraries and header files for developing applications that use libtree-sitter0.25. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/archive/v0.25.10/tree-sitter-0.25.10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ad5040537537012b16ef6e1210a572b927c7cdc2b99d1ee88d44a7dcdc3ff44c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ad5040537537012b16ef6e1210a572b927c7cdc2b99d1ee88d44a7dcdc3ff44c Requires -------- libtree-sitter0.25 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) libtree-sitter0.25-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libtree-sitter.so.0.25()(64bit) libtree-sitter0.25(x86-64) Provides -------- libtree-sitter0.25: libtree-sitter.so.0.25()(64bit) libtree-sitter0.25 libtree-sitter0.25(x86-64) tree-sitter(:LANGUAGE_VERSION) libtree-sitter0.25-devel: libtree-sitter0.25-devel libtree-sitter0.25-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(tree-sitter)
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/tree-sitter0.25 Monitoring: Wasn't able to create project in Anitya. You can create it manually on: `https://release-monitoring.org`
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-3011b6b751
Warning: skipped OpenPGP checks for 2 packages from repository: local_build_repo - file /usr/lib64/libtree-sitter.so.0 conflicts between attempted installs of libtree-sitter0.25-0.25.10-2.fc45.x86_64 and libtree-sitter-0.26.8-1.fc45.x86_64 Do we need some Conflicts in both packages?
Conflicts would be inconvenient. Better to drop libtree-sitter.so.0 from the compatibility package, I think. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=145218440
Works, could we also have this in f44?
Sure. Could you build it in the same side tag as tree-sitter 0.26, so that both go out in the same update?
Done. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-d2cf4dbead
FEDORA-2026-d2cf4dbead (neovim-0.12.2-2.fc44, tree-sitter0.25-0.25.10-4.fc44, and 1 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-d2cf4dbead
FEDORA-2026-d2cf4dbead has been pushed to the Fedora 44 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-d2cf4dbead` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-d2cf4dbead See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2026-d2cf4dbead (neovim-0.12.2-2.fc44, tree-sitter0.25-0.25.10-7.fc44, and 1 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.