[Bug 1117961] Review Request: lua-msgpack - Lua binary-based efficient object serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117961 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed|2016-03-27 12:30:25 |2018-08-22 03:29:40 --- Comment #7 from Igor Gnatenko --- Unfortunately I don't have time to work on these review requests anymore, sorry. -- 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/message/GVBYU7EBJ2PN2NXOVVQAZMU4H2YYKXBU/
[Bug 1117961] Review Request: lua-msgpack - Lua binary-based efficient object serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117961
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl
--- Comment #6 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek ---
Building the srpm does not work if lua is not installed. I think you need to
wrap the ">= %{luaver}" part in a conditional that checks if luaver is defined.
+ package name is OK
+ license is acceptable (MIT)
+ license is specified correctly
- latest version, no 0.3.5 has been released
+ builds and install OK (once lua is manually installed)
+ provides/requires look correct
+ fedora-review is happy
Please update.
--
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
[Bug 1117961] Review Request: lua-msgpack - Lua binary-based efficient object serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117961 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Alias||lua-msgpack -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1117961] Review Request: lua-msgpack - Lua binary-based efficient object serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117961 --- Comment #5 from Igor Gnatenko --- New SRPM: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lua-msgpack-0.3.4-1.fc24.src.rpm New SPEC: https://ignatenkobrain.fedorapeople.org/for-review/lua-msgpack.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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1117961] Review Request: lua-msgpack - Lua binary-based efficient object serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117961 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Assignee|i...@cicku.me |nob...@fedoraproject.org Keywords||Reopened -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1117961] Review Request: lua-msgpack - Lua binary-based efficient object serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117961 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Flags|needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ | |gmail.com) | Last Closed||2016-03-27 12:30:25 --- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko --- (In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #3) > PING or I will submit this by myself since my package depends on it. Submit by yourself. Feel free to take my spec as base. ;) unfortunately I don't have time to work on this. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1117961] Review Request: lua-msgpack - Lua binary-based efficient object serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117961 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i.gnatenko.br...@gmail.com Flags||needinfo?(i.gnatenko.brain@ ||gmail.com) --- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng --- PING or I will submit this by myself since my package depends on it. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1117961] Review Request: lua-msgpack - Lua binary-based efficient object serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117961 Eduardo Mayorga changed: What|Removed |Added CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com --- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga --- Where is the license text? -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1117961] Review Request: lua-msgpack - Lua binary-based efficient object serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117961
--- Comment #1 from Christopher Meng ---
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]: 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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[-]: %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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arc
[Bug 1117961] Review Request: lua-msgpack - Lua binary-based efficient object serialization library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1117961 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||i...@cicku.me Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|i...@cicku.me Flags||fedora-review? -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
