[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0uUigI0hHD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-01-22 20:26:13 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NRsGc80L5O&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6mzKdAUI67&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=UDNJB9bhp4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Bug 889901 depends on bug 891436, which changed state. Bug 891436 Summary: Review Request: lua-markdown - Markdown module for Lua https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891436 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RMOvytevI4&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=tfeSZgtTa0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=i8NSWMXsh9&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hsinipjAvx&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5QrtIg9jea&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nd1vfZKxyX&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dGoWDzhNlE&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=PmKBGE9oKg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Thomas Moschny changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZdQMYKgk4p&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #7 from Thomas Moschny --- Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: lua-lgi Short Description: Lua bindings to GObject libraries Owners: thm Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=t925IpHvhP&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky --- Everything is fine, except the licensing (yeah, should have been clear so my bad): Main package: License: MIT %samples # gtk-demo is LGPLv2+ License: LGPLv2+ and MIT I trust you to fix this up before putting this in repos so: APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ysmaJU746l&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #5 from Thomas Moschny --- Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi-0.6.2-4.fc17.src.rpm %changelog * Mon Jan 7 2013 Thomas Moschny <..> - 0.6.2-4 - Remove unnecessary patch. - Update license tag: gtk-demo is licensed under LGPLv2+. - Put fully versioned dependency in subpackage. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TRwY79EEH0&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901
--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Notes:
- use %{?isa} macro in subpackage requires
- would be nice to try and upstream the patch
- license of samples is MIT and LGPLv2+ (due to gtk-demo)
- fsf address is also incorrect in demo
= 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
[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]: %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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lua-lgi-
samples
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
samples/gtk-demo is LGPLv2+
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macroes (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).
= 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
Don't know why but I don't need the patch even on x86_64
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Reviewer shoul
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|socho...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7IBmY05l8y&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Thomas Moschny changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||891436 (lua-markdown) Alias||lua-lgi --- Comment #3 from Thomas Moschny --- Many thanks for your comments! I updated my spec file. Patching the tests makefile is probably only necessary on a 64-bit system. Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi-0.6.2-3.fc17.src.rpm - Move samples to separate package. - Generate HTML documentation from markdown docs. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wVfZL1BBWy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||890381 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lf0YYV6DfW&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 Stanislav Ochotnicky changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||socho...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky --- I can do the review since we'll need this for new Awesome WM version. Silly me first started working on the spec and then checked if there's already a review so here's my (unfinished) version: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/lua-lgi.spec We can merge our efforts I guess :-) Main differences: * I prefer to split samples into separate subpackage (they are rather large - 280KB) * Generate html documentation from markdown files * For some reason I don't need to patch tests Maybe you could take some ideas from my spec and modify yours? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RfK7Lf2xYa&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 889901] Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=889901 --- Comment #1 from Thomas Moschny --- Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi.spec SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi-0.6.2-2.fc17.src.rpm Added gtk3 as BR, required by the test suite. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QxaY8z3uBq&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
