Bug 891996 (lua-ldoc)

I'll review this (FYI fedora-review flag is supposed to be set by reviewer)

Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-ldoc/lua-ldoc.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-ldoc/lua-ldoc-1.3.1-2.fc17.src.rpm

%changelog
* Wed Jan  9 2013 Thomas Moschny <..> - 1.3.1-2
- Fix requirements.
- Move docs to a separate package.

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

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

Issues:
- License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
  doc subpackage doesn't include COPYING file

- Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
  bonus points for contacting upstream about this

I'm approving the package, just fix the licensing in doc subpackage before pushing to repos.


===== 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]: 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.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[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.
[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]: 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:
[-]: 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.

[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: 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]: 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.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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: lua-ldoc-1.3.1-2.fc19.noarch.rpm
          lua-ldoc-doc-1.3.1-2.fc19.noarch.rpm
lua-ldoc.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
lua-ldoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ldoc
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint lua-ldoc-doc lua-ldoc
lua-ldoc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ldoc
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
lua-ldoc-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    lua-ldoc

lua-ldoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    lua
    lua-penlight



Provides
--------
lua-ldoc-doc:
    lua-ldoc-doc

lua-ldoc:
    lua-ldoc



MD5-sum check
-------------
https://github.com/stevedonovan/LDoc/archive/1.3.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c1c5bf3c6d94691710aba3edd8a6b2291ab9e9390f338d79e84c69c35e82675f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1c5bf3c6d94691710aba3edd8a6b2291ab9e9390f338d79e84c69c35e82675f


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (736af0d) last change: 2013-01-28
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 891996

Thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: lua-ldoc
Short Description: Lua documentation generator
Owners: thm
Branches: f16 f17 f18
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

lua-ldoc-1.3.3-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-ldoc-1.3.3-1.fc18

lua-ldoc-1.3.3-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-ldoc-1.3.3-1.fc16

lua-ldoc-1.3.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-ldoc-1.3.3-1.fc17

lua-ldoc-1.3.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

lua-ldoc-1.3.3-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

lua-ldoc-1.3.3-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.