Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/lua/lua-lunitx.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/lua/lua-lunitx-0.8.1-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: This is lunitx Version 0.8.1, an extended version of Lunit for Lua 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4. Lunit is a unit testing framework for lua. (This package obsoletes the existing, unmaintained lua-lunit) Fedora Account System Username: salimma
reference for renaming packages: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#renaming-or-replacing-existing-packages
Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/lua/lua-lunitx.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/lua/lua-lunitx-0.8.1-2.fc32.src.rpm
ACCEPT The package looks good to me! Package Review ============== Reviewer's Note: - This is a re-review request for the rename of lua-lunit - Obsoletes and Provides are correctly found on the specfile Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/home/returntrip/reviews/lua-lunitx/1872542-lua- lunitx/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 30720 bytes in 9 files. [x]: 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 %license. [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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: lua-lunitx-0.8.1-2.fc34.noarch.rpm lua-lunitx-0.8.1-2.fc34.src.rpm lua-lunitx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lunit -> Unit, L unit, Lu nit lua-lunitx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lunit lua-lunitx.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lunit -> Unit, L unit, Lu nit lua-lunitx.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. lua-lunitx.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Lunit -> Unit, L unit, Lu nit lua-lunitx.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/dcurrie/lunit/ <urlopen error [Errno -3] Temporary failure in name resolution> lua-lunitx.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lunit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dcurrie/lunit/archive/0.8.1.tar.gz#/lunitx-0.8.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e571ff01cb8f8f77dceeb098359bc5d7f5b4b696023e3b9d5ee1b4c3d986ac32 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e571ff01cb8f8f77dceeb098359bc5d7f5b4b696023e3b9d5ee1b4c3d986ac32 Requires -------- lua-lunitx (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh lua(abi) Provides -------- lua-lunitx: lua-lunit lua-lunitx Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1872542 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, Python, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, R, SugarActivity, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! ❯ fedpkg request-repo lua-lunitx 1872542 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27967
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-lunitx
FEDORA-2020-7c23dc64c0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c23dc64c0
FEDORA-2020-9074133de4 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9074133de4
FEDORA-2020-9074133de4 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-9074133de4 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-9074133de4 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-7c23dc64c0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-7c23dc64c0 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-7c23dc64c0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-9074133de4 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-7c23dc64c0 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.