Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/lua-term.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/lua-term-0.03-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Lua module for manipulating a terminal. Fedora Account System Username: orion http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6804960
*** Bug 1019770 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Permissions on files are set properly. Note: See rpmlint output See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions Needs chmod 755. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. Ignore. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Please use commit hash for downloading the Source tarball: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [!]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mockbuild/review/lua-term/licensecheck.txt [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 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files. [!]: 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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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). [?]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lua-term-0.03-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm lua-term-0.03-1.fc21.src.rpm lua-term.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/lua/5.2/term/core.so 0775L 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint lua-term lua-term.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/lua/5.2/term/core.so 0775L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- lua-term (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) lua(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- lua-term: lua-term lua-term(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- lua-term: /usr/lib64/lua/5.2/term/core.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/hoelzro/lua-term/archive/0.03.tar.gz#/lua-term-0.03.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 255c833cd4f2c526f4b1e0aa0e06a6c2a58614eac112d0e10aace51a30218bb3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 255c833cd4f2c526f4b1e0aa0e06a6c2a58614eac112d0e10aace51a30218bb3 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -r -n lua-term-0.03-1.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Jamie Nguyen from comment #2) > Issues: > ======= > - Permissions on files are set properly. > Note: See rpmlint output > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions > > Needs chmod 755. > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > Please use commit hash for downloading the Source tarball: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github Hmm, that's a pain, but I guess protects against tags changing. > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint lua-term > lua-term.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm > /usr/lib64/lua/5.2/term/core.so 0775L How did you end up with this permission? My local builds and the koji builds do not have it? I've put a chmod in my spec, but this seems strange. * Fri May 2 2014 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 0.03-2 - Use git hash for source - Fix .so permissions Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/lua-term.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/lua-term-0.03-2.fc20.src.rpm
(In reply to Orion Poplawski from comment #3) > (In reply to Jamie Nguyen from comment #2) > > # rpmlint lua-term > > lua-term.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm > > /usr/lib64/lua/5.2/term/core.so 0775L > > How did you end up with this permission? My local builds and the koji > builds do not have it? I've put a chmod in my spec, but this seems strange. Err, that's strange. I have no idea why/how my local mock builds would be different here. > * Fri May 2 2014 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 0.03-2 > - Use git hash for source > - Fix .so permissions > > Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/lua-term.spec > SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/lua-term-0.03-2.fc20.src.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: lua-term-0.03-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm lua-term-0.03-2.fc21.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint lua-term 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpm -qp --requires ./lua-term-0.03-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) lua(abi) >= 5.2 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm -qp --requires ./lua-term-0.03-2.el6.x86_64.rpm libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) lua < 5.1 lua >= 5.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 $ mock -r epel-6-x86_64 --install /tmp/lua-term-0.03-2.el6.x86_64.rpm Error: Package: lua-term-0.03-2.el6.x86_64 (/lua-term-0.03-2.el6.x86_64) Requires: lua < 5.1 Installed: lua-5.1.4-4.1.el6.x86_64 (@base) lua = 5.1 lua = 5.1.4-4.1.el6 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest The Requires version is wrong for EL6. According to the guideline drafts [1], you need this: %global luanext 5.2 Requires: lua >= %{luaver} Requires: lua < %{luanext} [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Lua
Ah, shoot, fixed. Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/lua-term.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/lua-term-0.03-3.fc20.src.rpm * Fri May 2 2014 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 0.03-3 - Fix EL6 lua requires
Great. Package installs fine now in both rawhide and EL6. Package approved!
Thanks for the thorough review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: lua-term Short Description: Terminal functions for Lua Owners: orion Branches: f19 f20 el6 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Checked in and built.