[Bug 1697309] Review Request: lua-bitop - bitwise operations for Lua 5.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697309 Tomas Krizek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2019-04-16 12:29:27 -- 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 1697309] Review Request: lua-bitop - bitwise operations for Lua 5.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697309 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 1697309] Review Request: lua-bitop - bitwise operations for Lua 5.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697309 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com -- 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 1697309] Review Request: lua-bitop - bitwise operations for Lua 5.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697309 Robert-André Mauchin changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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 1697309] Review Request: lua-bitop - bitwise operations for Lua 5.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697309 --- Comment #5 from Tomas Krizek --- I've fixed the issue mentioned above, please see update 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 1697309] Review Request: lua-bitop - bitwise operations for Lua 5.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697309
Robert-André Mauchin changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin ---
(In reply to Andreas Schneider from comment #2)
> I'm not able to run fedora-review on Fedora 29. First I needed to disable
> one of my repositories that mock is able to install packages and dnf
> repoquery throws an exception.
>
> However in the install section please create directory with an extra install
> call, e.g.:
>
> install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{luacompatlibdir}
>
>
> and for LUALIB please use a %global and define it at the beginning of the
> spec file.
Use fedora-review 0.7.1 from updates-testing. I've changed the way repoquery is
run (now everything is in the chroot).
Onto the review:
# NOTE: for some reason, debugsourcefiles.list is empty when building on
Fedora,
# even though -g is present in CFLAGS
%global debug_package %{nil}
This needs some investigation. This is probably related to:
%install
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7
install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{luacompatlibdir}
install -m 0644 bit.so %{buildroot}%{luacompatlibdir}/bit.so
%else
install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{lualibdir}
install -m 0644 bit.so %{buildroot}%{lualibdir}/bit.so
%endif
.so needs to be executables to be properly stripped. Use -m 0755.
- Use install -p to keep timestamps
- use %make_build to build in //
- Also set up Fedora default flags
LDFLAGS="%{build_ldflags} $(pkg-config --libs %{lualib})"
- -g -s is already set in optflags, no need to repeat it
- Be more specific in %files
%if 0%{?rhel} && 0%{?rhel} <= 7
%files
%doc README
%{lualibdir}/bit.so
%endif
%if 0%{?fedora} || 0%{?rhel} > 7
%files -n compat-%{name}
%doc README
%{luacompatlibdir}/bit.so
%endif
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-bitop
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
= 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]: 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]: 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". 18 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/lua-bitop/review-lua-bitop/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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
[Bug 1697309] Review Request: lua-bitop - bitwise operations for Lua 5.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697309 --- Comment #3 from Tomas Krizek --- Changed spec as suggested above. Andreas, feel free to leave the formal review to some else if you have issues with the tool. A colleague of mine will be reviewing the other lua packages I've created anyway. -- 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 1697309] Review Request: lua-bitop - bitwise operations for Lua 5.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697309
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schneider ---
I'm not able to run fedora-review on Fedora 29. First I needed to disable one
of my repositories that mock is able to install packages and dnf repoquery
throws an exception.
However in the install section please create directory with an extra install
call, e.g.:
install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{luacompatlibdir}
and for LUALIB please use a %global and define it at the beginning of the spec
file.
--
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 1697309] Review Request: lua-bitop - bitwise operations for Lua 5.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697309 Andreas Schneider changed: What|Removed |Added 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 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 1697309] Review Request: lua-bitop - bitwise operations for Lua 5.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1697309 Tomas Krizek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||a...@redhat.com, ||petr.spa...@nic.cz --- Comment #1 from Tomas Krizek --- COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/tkrizek/lua/build/879756/ I wasn't able to create debugsource for Fedora, so I've disabled it. Then I ran into this rpmlint issue that might be related, but I wasn't able to fix it either: $ fedpkg --release f29 lint compat-lua-bitop.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/lua/5.1/bit.so 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- 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
