Bug 526805
Summary: | Review Request: lua-loop - Class models for Lua | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Michel Lind <michel> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | j:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.el5 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-11-26 21:05:23 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: |
Description
Michel Lind
2009-10-01 19:57:05 UTC
Just going over the old review tickets. This one builds fine and rpmlint is silent. As expected for a ticket this old, there are some lines in the spec which are unnecessary on modern Fedora (BuildRoot, first line of %install, the entire %clean section) which I would recommend removing unless you plan to target EPEL with the same spec. I see a comment "# for checks" but I don't see any checks enabled and I don't see anything that's obviously a test suite. Is there one? Do you think that preloader.lua and precompiler.lua, which aren't in the package-specific directory, are problematic? They don't conflict with anything but the names do seem quite generic. I don't know much about Lua, however, so I'll defer to you. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 2c9000f5744ca84b6c0d58bd8fb1d8d71c2841b01a75b3b201a486f88ffda864 loop-2.3-beta.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: lua-loop-2.3-0.1.beta.fc15.noarch.rpm lua-loop = 2.3-0.1.beta.fc15 = /usr/bin/env lua >= 5.1 lua-lpeg >= 0.8.1 lua-loop-doc-2.3-0.1.beta.fc15.noarch.rpm lua-loop-doc = 2.3-0.1.beta.fc15 = lua-loop = 2.3-0.1.beta.fc15 * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. ? maybe generically named files * code, not content. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. Thanks for the review! EL-5 and EL-6 have reasonable Lua stacks, so (In reply to comment #1) > Just going over the old review tickets. This one builds fine and rpmlint is > silent. As expected for a ticket this old, there are some lines in the spec > which are unnecessary on modern Fedora (BuildRoot, first line of %install, the > entire %clean section) which I would recommend removing unless you plan to > target EPEL with the same spec. > EL-5 and -6 have decent Lua stacks (though -5 is a bit buggy right now), so it'd be nice to have this package there, yes. > I see a comment "# for checks" but I don't see any checks enabled and I don't > see anything that's obviously a test suite. Is there one? > Will investigate -- it's been a while! I suspect it comes from another Lua spec, for a package that does have a test suite. > Do you think that preloader.lua and precompiler.lua, which aren't in the > package-specific directory, are problematic? They don't conflict with anything > but the names do seem quite generic. I don't know much about Lua, however, so > I'll defer to you. I'll compare it with the packaging done for LuaRocks (Lua's equivalent of CPAN) and get back to you. Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/lua-loop.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.fc14.src.rpm Updated: - scripts now installed in %%{_bindir} I contemplated giving them a loop- prefix, but then LuaRocks install them unprefixed, and they are generic enough to be usable to interoperate between C code and *any* Lua module, not just loop. One would assume that if there is any naming conflict, someone would have fixed the Rocks specification by now! - remove unneeded dependencies Looks good, thanks. APPROVED Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: lua-loop Short Description: Class models for Lua Owners: salimma Branches: el5 el6 f13 f14 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.fc13 lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.fc14 lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.el5 lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update lua-loop'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.el5 lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. lua-loop-2.3-0.2.beta.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |