[Bug 2375219] New: Review Request: guile-syntax-highlight - Syntax highlighting for code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2375219
Bug ID: 2375219 Summary: Review Request: guile-syntax-highlight - Syntax highlighting for code Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: benson_muite@emailplus.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/guile-syntax-highlight.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/guile-syntax-highlight-0.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
description: guile-syntax-highlight is a general-purpose syntax highlighting library for GNU Guile. It can parse code written in various programming languages into a simple s-expression that can be easily converted to HTML (via SXML) or any other format for rendering.
fas: fed500
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2375219
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |gwync@protonmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |gwync@protonmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2375219
--- Comment #1 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present.
===== 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: "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 3", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v3.0 or later [generated file]", "Unknown or generated", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gwyn/2375219-guile-syntax-highlight/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib64/guile/3.0, /usr/lib64/guile [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/guile(guile- reader-devel, guile30, guile-commonmark, compat-guile18, haunt, guile22), /usr/share/guile/site(guile-reader-devel, guile30, guile- commonmark, compat-guile18, haunt, guile22), /usr/share/guile/site/3.0(guile-commonmark, guile-reader-devel, guile30, haunt) [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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 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 3542 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: guile-syntax-highlight-0.2.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm guile-syntax-highlight-0.2.0-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpky1h5x1d')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 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: 1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://files.dthompson.us/releases/guile-syntax-highlight/guile-syntax-high... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 29d1d99d903a021a5ebdfdbdec4fce1168e66d90e41137b4f0eea8261d248c92 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 29d1d99d903a021a5ebdfdbdec4fce1168e66d90e41137b4f0eea8261d248c92 https://files.dthompson.us/releases/guile-syntax-highlight/guile-syntax-high... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 695a8c000fa61146f53c4a18030c8a26aef0e7841e0fe43c0d1d1a4341f89660 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 695a8c000fa61146f53c4a18030c8a26aef0e7841e0fe43c0d1d1a4341f89660
Requires -------- guile-syntax-highlight (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- guile-syntax-highlight: guile-syntax-highlight guile-syntax-highlight(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2375219 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ruby, C/C++, Ocaml, fonts, Haskell, Python, Java, Perl, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Looks good, but please check the file/directory ownership.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2375219
--- Comment #2 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Added a requires on guile30 to ensure directory ownership.
spec: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/guile-syntax-highlight.spec srpm: https://fed500.fedorapeople.org/guile-syntax-highlight-0.2.0-1.fc42.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2375219
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://dthompson.us/projec | |ts/guile-syntax-highlight.h | |tml
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9513226 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
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.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2375219
Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- Excellent, APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2375219
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/guile-syntax-highlight
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com