Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/perl-Lua-API.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/perl-Lua-API-0.04-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Lua is a simple, expressive, extension programming language that is easily embeddable. Lua::API provides Perl bindings to Lua's C-based embedding API. It allows Perl routines to be called from Lua as if they were written in C, and allows Perl routines to directly manipulate the Lua interpreter and its environment. It presents a very low-level interface (essentially equivalent to the C interface), so is aimed at developers who need that sort of access. Fedora Account System Username: ngompa
The %files list seems to have several wildcards. Try to make it more explicit. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_explicit_lists ========================================================================================== The guidelines mandate a few specifics with perl build requirements. BuildRequires: perl-interpreter BuildRequires: perl(:VERSION) >= 5.8.0 https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/#_build_dependencies ========================================================================================== They also recommend metacpan URLs. URL: https://metacpan.org/release/Lua-API https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Perl/#_url_tag ========================================================================================== Clean up these rpmlint errors if you can. perl-Lua-API.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Lua/API/API.so 555 perl-Lua-API.x86_64: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/share/doc/perl-Lua-API/Makefile.PL.orig
I've refreshed the package to address as many of those as I can: Spec URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/perl-Lua-API.spec SRPM URL: https://ngompa.fedorapeople.org/for-review/perl-Lua-API-0.04-1.fc36.src.rpm
Thanks for the fixes. The rpmlint errors are different now, and several of them can be resolved. perl-Lua-API.x86_64: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/share/doc/perl-Lua-API/Makefile.PL.orig This seems like it shouldn't be part of %doc. In fact lots of those files don't seem necessary there. -%doc ChangeLog Changes const-c.inc const-xs.inc Makefile.PL.orig proto_hints.yml protos protos.yml README wrap_xs.tpl xs_xs.tpl +%doc ChangeLog Changes README perl-Lua-API.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Lua/API/API.so 555 Other packages seem to address this with a simple chmod, which should work here. +chmod 0755 %{buildroot}%{perl_vendorarch}/auto/Lua/API/API.so perl-Lua-API-debuginfo.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Lua/API/API.so-0.04-1.fc38.x86_64.debug perl-Lua-API-debuginfo.x86_64: E: shared-library-without-dependency-information /usr/lib/debug/usr/lib64/perl5/vendor_perl/auto/Lua/API/API.so-0.04-1.fc38.x86_64.debug These go away if the chmod fix is done. One more thing I noticed, since this review started the license guidelines have changed. -License: GPLv3+ +License: GPL-3.0-or-later
Fixed them. URL is the same as in comment 2.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 20480 bytes in 3 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 Perl: [x]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. [x]: CPAN urls should be non-versioned. ===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/perl-Lua-API
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1eef7b5256 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1eef7b5256
FEDORA-2022-f871aa5d8a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f871aa5d8a
FEDORA-2022-dc71ba2a12 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dc71ba2a12
FEDORA-2022-dc71ba2a12 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-dc71ba2a12 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-dc71ba2a12 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1eef7b5256 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1eef7b5256 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-6531670499 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-6531670499 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-3dbf2f6233 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-3dbf2f6233 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-f871aa5d8a has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-f871aa5d8a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-f871aa5d8a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-fb220b01fd has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-fb220b01fd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-fb220b01fd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-1eef7b5256 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-f871aa5d8a has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-fb220b01fd has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-3dbf2f6233 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-6531670499 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-dc71ba2a12 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.