[Bug 1697541] Review Request: lua-luaossl - comprehensive binding to OpenSSL for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697541 Tomas Krizek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-04-16 10:57:59 -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1697541] Review Request: lua-luaossl - comprehensive binding to OpenSSL for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697541 --- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-luaossl -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1697541] Review Request: lua-luaossl - comprehensive binding to OpenSSL for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697541 Tomas Krizek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1698134 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1698134 [Bug 1698134] Review Request: lua-http - HTTP library for Lua -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1697541] Review Request: lua-luaossl - comprehensive binding to OpenSSL for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697541 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin --- LGTM, package approved. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1697541] Review Request: lua-luaossl - comprehensive binding to OpenSSL for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697541 --- Comment #5 from Tomas Krizek --- I've fixed the issues above, please see updated spec. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1697541] Review Request: lua-luaossl - comprehensive binding to OpenSSL for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697541 --- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Also use %set_build_flags to also set default ldflags. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1697541] Review Request: lua-luaossl - comprehensive binding to OpenSSL for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697541 --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin --- - Also use "install-p" to keep timestamps. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1697541] Review Request: lua-luaossl - comprehensive binding to OpenSSL for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697541
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
- Use a better name for your archive:
Source0:
https://github.com/wahern/luaossl/archive/rel-%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
- One =, not 2:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 7
Requires: compat-%{name} = %{version}
- Be more specific in %files:
%files
%{luapkgdir}/openssl
%{luapkgdir}/openssl.lua
%{lualibdir}/_openssl.so
%license LICENSE
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} >= 7
%files -n compat-%{name}
%{luacompatpkgdir}/openssl
%{luacompatpkgdir}/openssl.lua
%{luacompatlibdir}/_openssl.so
%license LICENSE
%endif
- Own this directory:
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/lua-luaossl
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]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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", "Expat License". 70 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/lua-luaossl/review-lua-
luaossl/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/lua-luaossl
[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: 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 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]: 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]:
[Bug 1697541] Review Request: lua-luaossl - comprehensive binding to OpenSSL for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697541 Tomas Krizek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||petr.spa...@nic.cz --- Comment #1 from Tomas Krizek --- COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tkrizek/lua/build/879860/ $ fedpkg --release f29 lint compat-lua-luaossl.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/lua/5.1/_openssl.so SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list compat-lua-luaossl.x86_64: W: no-documentation lua-luaossl.x86_64: W: crypto-policy-non-compliance-openssl /usr/lib64/lua/5.3/_openssl.so SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list lua-luaossl.x86_64: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Documentation is in a separate subpackage. Regarding the crypto policy - if I'm reading the code correctly, there are no defaults passed to SSL_CTX_set_cipher_list() call. It seems to be there just to be wrapped as the Lua binding openssl.ssl.context.setCipherList(). I believe this is in compliance with the crypto policy, but please correct me if I'm wrong. -- 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 ___ package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
