[Bug 2143382] Review Request: lua-luarepl - REPL.lua - a reusable Lua REPL written in Lua
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143382
Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |arthur(a)bols.dev
Status|NEW |POST
Flags| |fedora-review+
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |arthur(a)bols.dev
--- Comment #3 from Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> ---
Looks good, package APPROVED.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
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". 25 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-
review/2143382-lua-luarepl/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1
lua-luarepl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary rep.lua
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.0 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/hoelzro/lua-repl/archive/0.10/lua-repl-0.10.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
55ba9f032bb4eb0e2e93dc66a368549bcf1a915bdd9f9a467eb778c3133c6373
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
55ba9f032bb4eb0e2e93dc66a368549bcf1a915bdd9f9a467eb778c3133c6373
Requires
--------
lua-luarepl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/lua
lua(abi)
Provides
--------
lua-luarepl:
lua-luarepl
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143382
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Perl, Java, Haskell, SugarActivity, R, PHP, fonts,
Ocaml, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143382
1 year, 4 months
[Bug 2143351] Review Request: lua-vstruct - Lua library to manipulate binary data
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143351
Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
CC| |arthur(a)bols.dev
Flags| |fedora-review+
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |arthur(a)bols.dev
--- Comment #3 from Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> ---
Typo in %check comment ;)
the partent folder name -> parent
It would be great if you could fix the tests. I don't know a nice way to do
this myself, so I'm not going to hold the review for it.
Everything else looks good, package APPROVED.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
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". 52 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-
review/2143351-lua-vstruct/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.0 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/ToxicFrog/vstruct/archive/v2.1.1/vstruct-2.1.1.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
029ae887fc3c59279f378a499741811976d90f9a806569a42f4de80ad349f333
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
029ae887fc3c59279f378a499741811976d90f9a806569a42f4de80ad349f333
Requires
--------
lua-vstruct (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
lua(abi)
Provides
--------
lua-vstruct:
lua-vstruct
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143351
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Java, Perl, SugarActivity, Python,
Haskell, R
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143351
1 year, 4 months
[Bug 2143056] Review Request: lua-cliargs - A command-line argument parser
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143056
Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |arthur(a)bols.dev
Status|NEW |POST
Flags| |fedora-review+
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |arthur(a)bols.dev
--- Comment #3 from Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> ---
Looks good, package is APPROVED!
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
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". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-review/2143056-lua-
cliargs/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.0 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/amireh/lua_cliargs/archive/v3.0-2/lua_cliargs-3.0-2.ta... :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
971d6f1440a55bdf9db581d4b2bcbf472a301d76f696a0d0ed9423957c7d176e
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
971d6f1440a55bdf9db581d4b2bcbf472a301d76f696a0d0ed9423957c7d176e
Requires
--------
lua-cliargs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
lua(abi)
Provides
--------
lua-cliargs:
lua-cliargs
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143056
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, fonts, C/C++, Perl, R, Java, PHP,
SugarActivity, Haskell
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143056
1 year, 4 months
[Bug 2142786] Review Request: lua-epnf - Extended PEG Notation Format (easy grammars for LPeg)
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142786
Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |arthur(a)bols.dev
Status|NEW |POST
CC| |arthur(a)bols.dev
--- Comment #3 from Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> ---
Please change the versioned requires for lua-lpeg to unversioned. The oldest
version available is 0.12 in el7, so the requirement would always be met. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_depen...
Everything else looks good, package approved! Please fix the versioned
requirement before import.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-
review/2142786-lua-epnf/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.0 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/siffiejoe/lua-luaepnf/archive/v0.3/lua-luaepnf-0.3.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
57c0ad1917e45c5677bfed0f6122da2baff98117aba05a5e987a0238600f85f9
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
57c0ad1917e45c5677bfed0f6122da2baff98117aba05a5e987a0238600f85f9
Requires
--------
lua-epnf (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
lua(abi)
lua-lpeg
Provides
--------
lua-epnf:
lua-epnf
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142786
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, Ocaml, Java, Python, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, R,
PHP, C/C++
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142786
1 year, 4 months
[Bug 2142671] Review Request: lua-cosmo - Safe templates for Lua
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671
Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review?
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |arthur(a)bols.dev
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |arthur(a)bols.dev
--- Comment #3 from Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> ---
I think it's a bit strange to include a separate license file. In this case it
would be fine to include the cosmo.md file in %license.
It's a bit cumbersome that the file would be missing from %doc. You could
create a symlink so that the %license file points to cosmo.md in %doc.
Please change the versioned requires for lua-lpeg to unversioned. The oldest
version available is 0.12 in el7, so the requirement would always be met. See
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_package_depen...
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
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: "MIT License", "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-
review/2142671-lua-cosmo/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
See remark above
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.0 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/mascarenhas/cosmo/archive/v16.06.04/cosmo-16.06.04.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
86d17aea5080a90671d965cffeb9b104c19e0e1ea55c08687c0924c4512b52b1
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
86d17aea5080a90671d965cffeb9b104c19e0e1ea55c08687c0924c4512b52b1
Requires
--------
lua-cosmo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
lua(abi)
lua-lpeg
Provides
--------
lua-cosmo:
lua-cosmo
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142671
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, fonts, Haskell, C/C++, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, R,
Python, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142671
1 year, 4 months
[Bug 2142653] Review Request: lua-cldr - Lua interface to Unicode CLDR data
by bugzilla@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653
Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |arthur(a)bols.dev
Flags| |fedora-review?
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |arthur(a)bols.dev
--- Comment #4 from Arthur Bols <arthur(a)bols.dev> ---
Hi Jonny
Looks good except for that the ICU license file is missing. I wonder if you
could leave it out since it's just generated data. If you'd like to leave it
out, ask on the Legal list (legal(a)lists.fedoraproject.org) if that is possible.
Otherwise please query upstream to include the ICU license text.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
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". 19 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora-review/2142653-lua-
cldr/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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).
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.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: 31, packages: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken
0.0 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/alerque/cldr-lua/archive/v0.2.0/cldr-lua-0.2.0.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
9e7ac91fec23fea571d08d5663145842d463d0778967ff6f6fa29cc621647aa9
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
9e7ac91fec23fea571d08d5663145842d463d0778967ff6f6fa29cc621647aa9
Requires
--------
lua-cldr (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
lua(abi)
lua-penlight
Provides
--------
lua-cldr:
lua-cldr
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142653
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: PHP, Java, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, R, fonts, SugarActivity,
Haskell, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142653
1 year, 4 months