https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142399 --- Comment #6 from Jonny Heggheim <hegjon@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Benson Muite from comment #4) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > > ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 28 > files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/FedoraPackaging/reviews/lua-cassowary/2142399-lua- > cassowary/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 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. > [!]: %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 0.3 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/sile-typesetter/cassowary.lua/archive/v2.3.2/cassowary. > lua-2.3.2.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > 20fe7309f59004ce59e6c65d69ed9993de907267fd0314fc224f40e017d59798 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 20fe7309f59004ce59e6c65d69ed9993de907267fd0314fc224f40e017d59798 > > > Requires > -------- > lua-cassowary (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > lua(abi) > lua-penlight > > > > Provides > -------- > lua-cassowary: > lua-cassowary > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2142399 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api > Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, R, Ocaml, Ruby, Python, Perl, Java, Haskell, > SugarActivity, PHP > Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH > > Comments: > a) A number of the other lua packages use Busted ( > https://github.com/lunarmodules/busted) for testing. Maybe it is worth > packaging this? Dependencies are: > copas - not packaged https://github.com/lunarmodules/copas uses > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lua-socket/lua-socket and > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lua-sec/lua-sec > lua-ev - not packaged https://github.com/brimworks/lua-ev > moonscript - pacakged > https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/lua-moonscript/lua-moonscript > > b) If problematic to package, can you add a smoke test, for example based on > one of the test programs or the program in the README: > cassowary = require("cassowary") > local solver = cassowary.SimplexSolver(); > local x = cassowary.Variable({ name = 'x' }); > local y = cassowary.Variable({ name = 'y' }); > solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Inequality(x, "<=", y)) > solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Equation(y, cassowary.plus(x, 3))) > solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Equation(x, 10, cassowary.Strength.weak)) > solver:addConstraint(cassowary.Equation(y, 10, cassowary.Strength.weak)) > print("x = "..x.value) > print("y = "..y.value) I updated the package to include this smoke test, it builds successfull https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94239318 It would be great to have busted in our repository, but I do not think my schedule allows making the packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2142399 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
