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.
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.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/erlang-luerl
Peter, I removed the internal headers as you suggested. Thanks for the review!