Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/luarocks.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/luarocks-2.0.8-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: LuaRocks allows you to install Lua modules as self-contained packages called "rocks", which also contain version dependency information. This information is used both during installation, so that when one rock is requested all rocks it depends on are installed as well, and at run time, so that when a module is required, the correct version is loaded. LuaRocks supports both local and remote repositories, and multiple local rocks trees.
note: there's a previous, apparently abandoned review at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=577514 -- will check there if the packager want to collaborate, and if not, close it as a duplicate
*** Bug 577514 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I'll review this one.
Before I do the full review, are you planning to support EPEL5? If not, you'll need to remove the following line at the top of %install: rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
Thanks -- someone needs to eventually file a bug against the RPM spec templates! luarocks works fine on RHEL 5 (just tested it on the test machines), though for it (and on RHEL 6) the spec needs some changes; I've guarded those changes with %if 0%{?el5} and %if 0%{?rhel}. http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/luarocks-2.0.8-2.fc17.src.rpm http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/luarocks.spec
Packaged is APPROVED Issues (not a MUST): [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. - There is a test/run_tests.sh script, but I wasn't able to run it by hand. This would be good to include in %check if you can get it to work. That aside, I did verify that the installed program worked as expected. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Licenses found: "*No copyright* UNKNOWN" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/threebean/reviews/819844/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/threebean/reviews/819844/luarocks-2.0.8.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 07cf84e352d86fe161f7b2ec43f360cc MD5SUM upstream package : 07cf84e352d86fe161f7b2ec43f360cc [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Thanks! Will try and get the test suite working New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: luarocks Short Description: A deployment and management system for Lua modules Owners: salimma Branches: el5 el6 f16 f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
luarocks-2.0.8-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/luarocks-2.0.8-2.fc17
luarocks-2.0.8-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/luarocks-2.0.8-2.el6
luarocks-2.0.8-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/luarocks-2.0.8-2.el5
luarocks-2.0.8-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/luarocks-2.0.8-2.fc16
luarocks-2.0.8-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
luarocks-2.0.8-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
luarocks-2.0.8-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
luarocks-2.0.8-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.
luarocks-2.0.8-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.