Bug 1317345

Summary: Review Request: erlang-luerl - Lua in Erlang
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Randy Barlow <rbarlow>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: lemenkov, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: lemenkov: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: erlang-luerl-0-20151209.9524d030.2.fc25 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-04-10 19:17:14 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 1312517    

Description Randy Barlow 2016-03-14 03:45:37 UTC
Spec URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-luerl.spec
SRPM URL: https://rbarlow.fedorapeople.org/erlang-luerl-0-20151209.9524d030.1.fc25.src.rpm
Description: An experimental implementation of Lua 5.2 written solely in pure Erlang.
Fedora Account System Username: rbarlow

This is the output of rpmlint on the generated RPM:

erlang-luerl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Lua -> Lu, La, Luna
erlang-luerl.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-luerl.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
erlang-luerl.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/erlang-luerl/examples/hello/hello2-3.lua
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

The no-binary error is normal for Erlang packages, as is the only-non-binary-in-usr-lib. I don't think we need to worry about the encoding on the example code.

Comment 1 Peter Lemenkov 2016-03-15 13:02:23 UTC
REVIEW:

[+] rpmlint is silent (or produces only messages which can be safely ignored.
[+] The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
[+] The package meets the Erlang Packaging Guidelines.
[+] The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines.
[+] The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (Apache License 2.0)
[+] The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc and marked as %license.
[+] The spec file is written in American English.
[+] The spec file for the package is legible.
[+] The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.

Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum 9524d0309a88b7c62ae93da0b632b185de3ba9db.tar.gz*
b5af83ceb7b6e984487ab9170cd1c0764c3a320e8461321413d81f6d5fc42647  9524d0309a88b7c62ae93da0b632b185de3ba9db.tar.gz
b5af83ceb7b6e984487ab9170cd1c0764c3a320e8461321413d81f6d5fc42647  9524d0309a88b7c62ae93da0b632b185de3ba9db.tar.gz.1
Auriga ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES:

[+] The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[+] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
[0] No need to handle locales.
[0] The package does not contain any shared library files.
[+] Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries.
[+] The package isn't designed to be relocatable.
[+] The package owns all directories that it creates.
[+] The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
[+] Permissions on files are set properly.
[+] The package consistently uses macros.
[+] The package contains code, or permissible content.
[0] No large documentation files.
[+] Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application.
[0] No static libraries.
[0] No -devel sub-package.
[+] The package does not contain any .la libtool archives.
[0] Not a GUI application.
[+] The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[+] All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

APPROVED.

PS a minor proposal. I dont see anything in Ejaberd which actually uses luerl internal headers (*.hrl files). Normally ones which shipped within ./src directory shoudln't be packaged - only those which stored in ./include should be.

So if you just unsure what to do with these *.hrl files, then I advice you not to package them. Feel free to ignore this advice since shipping them doesn't hurt anyone.

Comment 2 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-03-16 13:54:22 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/erlang-luerl

Comment 3 Randy Barlow 2016-04-10 19:17:14 UTC
Peter,

I removed the internal headers as you suggested. Thanks for the review!