Bug 1089409

* Mon May 5 2014 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 5.5.1-1
- Update to 5.5.1

* Fri May 2 2014 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 5.5-2
- Add EL support

* Thu May 1 2014 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 5.5-1
- Update to 5.5

Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/Lmod.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/Lmod-5.5.1-1.fc20.src.rpm

I am taking this. This will be my first lua package, so bear with me! :D

Any progress?

Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/Lmod.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/Lmod-5.6-1.fc20.src.rpm

Actually yes, but now that you have a newer version, I will try to do a detailed review later tonight. :)

Sorry I could not get to this yesterday. A couple of quick questions before I run fedora-review - 

Provides:       environment(modules)

Should this be versioned instead?

Nope - see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:EnvironmentModules

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== 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.

---> Only MIT included although LGPL2 is mentioned (not included) in atleast one source file.

[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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in
     /home/mukundan/personal/pkgs/reviews/1089409-Lmod/licensecheck.txt

---> License is correct.

[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d,
     /usr/lib/rpm, /etc/profile.d

---> This is correct.

[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/modulefiles(environment-
     modules)

---> Is this correct? Please clarify.

[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]: 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 30720 bytes in 4 files.
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: Lmod-5.6-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          Lmod-5.6-1.fc21.src.rpm
Lmod.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Modulefiles -> Module files, Module-files, Modules
Lmod.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Lmod.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/00-modulepath.csh
Lmod.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/00-modulepath.sh
Lmod.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/Lmod/INSTALL
Lmod.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
Lmod.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modulefiles -> module files, module-files, modules
Lmod.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Modulefiles -> Module files, Module-files, Modules
Lmod.src:27: W: unversioned-explicit-provides environment(modules)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint Lmod
Lmod.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Modulefiles -> Module files, Module-files, Modules
Lmod.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Lmod.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/00-modulepath.csh
Lmod.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/profile.d/00-modulepath.sh
Lmod.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/Lmod/INSTALL

---> I guess this could be removed. Any specific reason why INSTALL file is included?

Lmod.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
Lmod (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    /usr/bin/lua
    /usr/bin/tclsh
    /usr/sbin/update-alternatives
    lua-filesystem
    lua-json
    lua-posix
    lua-term



Provides
--------
Lmod:
    Lmod
    environment(modules)



Source checksums
----------------
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/lmod/Lmod-5.6.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f4a09406f7b0287f4762472bcdbc13daf9fd6c490f98c54014973a73057e522d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f4a09406f7b0287f4762472bcdbc13daf9fd6c490f98c54014973a73057e522d


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1089409
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

(In reply to Mukundan Ragavan from comment #7)
> ===== MUST items =====
> 
> Generic:
> [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
>      Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /etc/modulefiles(environment-
>      modules)
> 
> ---> Is this correct? Please clarify.

Yes - both Lmod and environment-modules implement the "modules" concept.  Common module files go in /etc/modulefiles or /usr/share/modulefiles.

> Lmod.noarch: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/Lmod/INSTALL
> 
> ---> I guess this could be removed. Any specific reason why INSTALL file is
> included?

There is some extra usage information in there that I think could be helpful.

Sounds good to me. Package APPROVED.

Thanks for the review.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: Lmod
Short Description:  Environmental Modules System in Lua
Upstream URL: https://www.tacc.utexas.edu/tacc-projects/lmod
Owners: orion
Branches: f19 f20 epel7 el6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Checked in and built.  Thanks all.