Bug 440681 - Review Request: luadoc - Documentation Generator Tool for Lua
Review Request: luadoc - Documentation Generator Tool for Lua
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 440676 440680
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-04-04 09:55 EDT by Tim Niemueller
Modified: 2010-11-07 10:40 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2008-04-13 17:41:10 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
michel: fedora‑review+
tibbs: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Tim Niemueller 2008-04-04 09:55:31 EDT
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/luastuff/luadoc.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~timn/luastuff/luadoc-3.0.1.tar.gz
LuaDoc is a documentation generator tool for Lua source code. It parses the
declarations and documentation comments in a set of Lua source files and
produces a set of XHTML pages describing the commented declarations and

The output is not limited to XHTML. Other formats can be generated by
implementing new doclets. The format of the documentation comments is also
flexible and can be customized by implementing new taglets.

Website: http://luadoc.luaforge.net/
Comment 1 Michel Alexandre Salim 2008-04-06 16:17:42 EDT
Taking this review
Comment 2 Michel Alexandre Salim 2008-04-09 20:19:21 EDT
Several problems:

• rpmlint: strange permission on tarball, 0600 (binary is clean)
• claims to be noarch, but installs files under %{libdir}. This is a problem as
  Koji will build the package only once, so %{libdir} might be /usr/lib or
  /usr/lib64. Can Lua, like Python, use two library paths, one for
  arch-independent libraries and another for arch-dependent? Otherwise, just
  remove the noarch

Comment 3 Tim Niemueller 2008-04-10 04:43:17 EDT
- Strange permission fixed (download was 600 by default)
- Which files are in %{_libdir}? There are only files in %{_datadir}! Don't be
tricked by the %{lualibdir} define, this is just part of my standard defines for
Lua packages, but this package in fact does not build a C lib but only contains
plain Lua files. Please re-check or name the files that happen to be in libdir
when you compile (I just did new compiles for both packages and can't see a
problem here). Please otherwise attached your "rpm -qpl" output of the resulting

I have uploaded the very same SRPM again with the only change being the
permissions of the source tarballs. I didn't bump the version for this so please
just download the SRPM mentioned above again.
Comment 4 Michel Alexandre Salim 2008-04-10 14:00:43 EDT
My download was 660 (using spectool -gf). Perhaps spectool fixes the permission
by default.

And you're correct, there was no %{_libdir} files -- sorry, I was not looking
Comment 5 Michel Alexandre Salim 2008-04-10 14:21:37 EDT
• rpmlint: OK
• package name: OK
• spec file name: OK
• package guideline-compliant: OK
• license complies with guidelines: OK
• license field accurate: OK
• license file not deleted: OK
• spec in US English: OK
• spec legible: OK
• source matches upstream: OK
• builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded: noarch
• build dependencies complete: OK
• locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale: N/A
• library -> ldconfig: N/A
• relocatable: give reason: N/A
• own all directories: See note below
• no dupes in %files: OK
• permission: OK
• macros used consistently: OK
• Package contains code: OK
• large docs => -doc: N/A
• clean buildroot before install: OK
• filenames UTF-8: OK

• package build in mock on all architectures: OK
• package functioned as described: OK
• scriplets are sane: OK
• require package not files: OK

Note: both luadoc and lua-logging requires lua >= 5.1, but install files under
%{_datadir}/lua/5.1 . Perhaps make them also require lua < 5.2 ? Otherwise
things will break when lua 5.2 is released: users might end up with dangling
/usr/share/lua/5.1 directories

Comment 6 Tim Niemueller 2008-04-10 17:35:55 EDT
Thanks for the reviews and pushing for Lua SIG.
Comment 7 Tim Niemueller 2008-04-10 17:36:49 EDT
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: luadoc
Short Description: Documentation Generator Tool for Lua
Owners: timn
Branches: F-7 F-8
Cvsextras Commits: yes
Comment 8 Kevin Fenzi 2008-04-12 18:02:36 EDT
cvs done.
Comment 9 Tim Niemueller 2008-04-13 17:40:38 EDT
I have added an explicit provide "lua = 5.1" to the lua package. This way
add-ons can depend on the exact base version that is required to have the proper
package paths in place. This way we also do not have to have something like "lua
>= 5.1; lua <= 5.2" which looks hackish. Since in the Lua world the base version
is anyway what is looked at we should be fine with this solution.
Comment 10 Tim Niemueller 2010-11-06 20:24:51 EDT
Package Change Request
Package Name: luadoc
New Branches: el5 el6
Owners: timn
Comment 11 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-07 10:40:12 EST
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.