Spec URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/lua-dbi.spec SRPM URL: http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/mcepl/prosody/epel-6/SRPMS/lua-dbi-0.5-1.el6.src.rpm Description: LuaDBI is a database interface library for Lua. It is designed to provide a RDBMS agnostic API for handling database operations. LuaDBI also provides support for prepared statement handles, placeholders and bind parameters for all database operations. Currently LuaDBI supports DB2, Oracle, MySQL, PostgreSQL and SQLite databases with native database drivers.
Sorry, SRC RPM is http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/lua-dbi-0.5-1.el6.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #0) > Spec URL: http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/lua-dbi.spec I can extract the spec from the SRPM, but could you also re-upload it somewhere? It's no longer in tmp Let me know if you still want to package this, and I'll do a review. Thanks!
The latest SRPM is at http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/mcepl/prosody/epel-6/SRPMS/lua-dbi-0.5-1.el6.src.rpm I don't know what's wrong with SPEC from there, but just for your convenience it is now on http://mcepl.fedorapeople.org/tmp/lua-dbi.spec as well again.
I'll take the review this week, if Michel Alexandre is no longer interested. Just a few notes for now: - rpmlint is not clean : lua-dbi.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/lua/5.1/dbdpostgresql.so 0775L lua-dbi.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/lua/5.1/dbdmysql.so 0775L lua-dbi.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/lua/5.1/dbdsqlite3.so 0775L - you probably should add lua requirement on the package ;)
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review Strangely, on my f-16, rpmlint seems clean on packages built with 'rpmbuild -ba' but is not with ones produced by mock. $ rpmlint -i /var/lib/mock/fedora-16-x86_64/result/*.rpm lua-dbi.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/lua/5.1/dbdpostgresql.so 0775L A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. lua-dbi.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/lua/5.1/dbdmysql.so 0775L A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. lua-dbi.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib64/lua/5.1/dbdsqlite3.so 0775L A standard executable should have permission set to 0755. If you get this message, it means that you have a wrong executable permissions in some files included in your package. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. + MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines changed from luadbi to lua-dbi to follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Lua + MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . Per above mentioned Lua Packaging Guidelines spec file should contain %if 0%{?fedora} >= 16 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7 Requires: lua(abi) = %{luaver} %else Requires: lua >= %{luaver} %endif + MUST: The package licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines + MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license MIT + MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. LICENSE is included. + MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. + MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. + MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task MD5: ede2b003aadddc151aac87050c3d926e + MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture - build in mock, no problems 0 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch + MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines Builds in mock 0 MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro No locales are present. 0 MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. No libraries provided. + MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries 0 MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker - MUST: Package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory Missing explicit requirement of lua package (which owns %{luapkgdir} used by package). + MUST: Package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings + MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + MUST: Each package must consistently use macros + MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content 0 MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage + MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application 0 MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package 0 MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package 0 MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' 0 MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package 0 MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built 0 MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section + MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages + MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) + MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8 You should also remove %{__mkdir} macros from the specfile.
(In reply to comment #4) > I'll take the review this week, if Michel Alexandre is no longer interested. Apologies for dropping the ball -- had a very hectic February. Thanks for taking over!
Ping? lua-dbi is a dependency for prosody package, I'm waiting the current review to be done so I can put prosody in the repositories :) Could you please fix the few remaining issues, so we can achieve the review? Thanks!
ping?
(In reply to comment #8) > ping? Sorry, I missed that I have filed this bug. Err. The problem is that I don't want to maintain this package. I will certainly finish this review (and I am sorry I have missed this), but could you please take over maintaining of the package once it is done? (In reply to comment #5) > Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable > > + MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in > the review > > Strangely, on my f-16, rpmlint seems clean on packages built with 'rpmbuild > -ba' but is not with ones produced by mock. RPMs from http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4190016 seem to be clean on my (more or less) F-17. > - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . > Per above mentioned Lua Packaging Guidelines spec file should contain > > %if 0%{?fedora} >= 16 || 0%{?rhel} >= 7 > Requires: lua(abi) = %{luaver} > %else > Requires: lua >= %{luaver} > %endif FIXED > You should also remove %{__mkdir} macros from the specfile. Done. Gosh, how could I overlook those ... I hate executed macros so much! New koji build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4190027
(In reply to comment #9) > Sorry, I missed that I have filed this bug. Err. The problem is that I don't > want to maintain this package. I will certainly finish this review (and I am > sorry I have missed this), but could you please take over maintaining of the > package once it is done? Okay, no problem; I'll take the ownership of that package ;) > New koji build at http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4190027 Fixes have been done and rpmlint is clean on koji's RPMs :) APPROVED!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: lua-dbi Short Description: Database interface library for Lua Owners: trasher Branches: f16 F17 el6 InitialCC: mcepl
Git done (by process-git-requests).
lua-dbi-0.5-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-dbi-0.5-2.fc17
lua-dbi-0.5-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-dbi-0.5-2.fc16
lua-dbi-0.5-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-dbi-0.5-2.el6
lua-dbi-0.5-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
lua-dbi-0.5-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
lua-dbi-0.5-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
lua-dbi-0.5-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: lua-dbi New Branches: epel7 Owners: robert