Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/lua-lunit.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/lua-lunit-0.4-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Lunit is a unit testing framework for lua, written in lua.
MUST * OK: rpmlint # rpmlint lua-lunit.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # rpmlint lua-lunit-0.4-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # rpmlint lua-lunit-0.4-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. * OK: package name * OK: package version and release * OK: spec file name * OP: 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 sha256sum 09efe9f35132353c6810c57367cba29659afc7348ff593c529cbee1831d66d7a * OK: builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded * OK: dependencies (requires) * FAIL: build dependencies complete lua >= %{luaver} should be in BR for %check to work. The lua package actually is pulled in (cf. root.log from scratch build below), but this is only intermediate, should be included directly as BR. * N/A: locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale * N/A: library -> ldconfig * N/A: relocatable: give reason * N/A: own all directories * OK: no dupes in %files * OK: permission * OK: %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT * FAIL: macros used consistently Most of the time you use %{dir} macros, but then you use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, should be %{buildroot} * OK: Package contains code * N/A: large docs => -doc * OK: doc not runtime dependent * N/A: headers in -devel * N/A: static in -static * N/A: if contains *.pc, req pkgconfig * N/A: if libfiles are suffixed, the non-suffixed goes to devel * N/A: devel requires versioned base package * N/A: desktop file uses desktop-file-install * OK: clean buildroot before install * OK: filenames UTF-8 SHOULD * OK: if license text missing, ask upstream to include it * N/A: desc and summary contain translations if available * OK: package builds in mock on all architectures https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1695926 * OK: package functions as described # lunit /usr/share/doc/lua-lunit-0.4/example.lua Loaded testsuite with 4 tests in 2 testcases. F... 6 Assertions checked. 1) Failure (simple.test_failure): /usr/share/doc/lua-lunit-0.4/example.lua:13: true expected but was false /usr/share/doc/lua-lunit-0.4/example.lua:13: This test always fails! Testsuite finished (3 passed, 1 failed, 0 errors). * OK: scriplets are sane If %check fails, you should cat testlog.txt such that the user knows what happened. * N/A: other subpackages should require versioned base * N/A: if main pkg is development-wise, pkgconfig can go in main package * N/A: require package not files Question: Is the koji scratch build enough to assert "package builds in mock on all architectures"? Preventing approval: - BR lua missing - Inconsistent macro usage (I know that's debatable, but the guidelines state that you should stick to one type or the other) Both are only minor, but for the first review I must be pedantic, right ;-)
(In reply to comment #1) > * FAIL: build dependencies complete > lua >= %{luaver} should be in BR for %check to work. The lua package actually > is pulled in (cf. root.log from scratch build below), but this is only > intermediate, should be included directly as BR. That's a good suggestion. lua is pulled in right now because rpm-libs depend on it, but making this explicit would be a good idea. > * FAIL: macros used consistently > Most of the time you use %{dir} macros, but then you use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, > should be %{buildroot} Non-issue, as in lua-json, but again, I can change this if you insist. > Question: > Is the koji scratch build enough to assert "package builds in mock on all > architectures"? Enough, yes. Well, all primary architectures: Koji builds on %{ix86}, x86_64, ppc and ppc64. Sometimes the package has to be modified later because the ARM and SPARC porting projects report errors, but that cannot be done during review. > Preventing approval: > - BR lua missing > - Inconsistent macro usage (I know that's debatable, but the guidelines state > that you should stick to one type or the other) One style or another for buildroot, I think. That's my interpretation anyway :) SRPM updated, at the same location.
Looks good to me now, I agree on your buildroot guideline interpretation. APPROVED
Thanks, Tim! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: lua-lunit Short Description: Unit testing framework for Lua Owners: salimma Branches: EL-5 F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
cvs done.
lua-lunit-0.4-1.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-lunit-0.4-1.fc10
lua-lunit-0.4-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-lunit-0.4-1.fc11
lua-lunit-0.4-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-lunit-0.4-1.el5
lua-lunit-0.4-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update lua-lunit'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/EL-5/FEDORA-EPEL-2009-0515
lua-lunit-0.4-1.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
lua-lunit-0.4-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
lua-lunit-0.4-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.