Bug 889901 (lua-lgi) - Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Summary: Review Request: lua-lgi - Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Alias: lua-lgi
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Stanislav Ochotnicky
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: lua-markdown
Blocks: 890381
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2012-12-23 22:05 UTC by Thomas Moschny
Modified: 2013-01-23 01:43 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-01-23 01:26:13 UTC
Type: ---
sochotni: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Thomas Moschny 2012-12-23 22:05:56 UTC
Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi-0.6.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: LGI is gobject-introspection based dynamic Lua binding to GObject based libraries. It allows using GObject-based libraries directly from Lua.
Fedora Account System Username: thm

Comment 1 Thomas Moschny 2012-12-23 23:27:42 UTC
Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi-0.6.2-2.fc17.src.rpm

Added gtk3 as BR, required by the test suite.

Comment 2 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2013-01-02 16:48:41 UTC
I can do the review since we'll need this for new Awesome WM version. 

Silly me first started working on the spec and then checked if there's already a review so here's my (unfinished) version:

We can merge our efforts I guess :-)

Main differences:
 * I prefer to split samples into separate subpackage (they are rather large - 280KB)
 * Generate html documentation from markdown files
 * For some reason I don't need to patch tests

Maybe you could take some ideas from my spec and modify yours?

Comment 3 Thomas Moschny 2013-01-02 22:53:56 UTC
Many thanks for your comments! I updated my spec file. Patching the tests makefile is probably only necessary on a 64-bit system.

Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi-0.6.2-3.fc17.src.rpm

- Move samples to separate package.
- Generate HTML documentation from markdown docs.

Comment 4 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2013-01-07 09:37:46 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- use %{?isa} macro in subpackage requires
- would be nice to try and upstream the patch
- license of samples is MIT and LGPLv2+ (due to gtk-demo)
- fsf address is also incorrect in demo

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
     Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lua-lgi-
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
samples/gtk-demo is LGPLv2+

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macroes (instead of hard-coded directory
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).

===== SHOULD items =====

[x]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
     Don't know why but I don't need the patch even on x86_64
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[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
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: lua-lgi-0.6.2-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm
lua-lgi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gobject -> object, g object
lua-lgi-samples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/lua-lgi-samples-0.6.2/gtk-demo/main.lua
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint lua-lgi-samples lua-lgi
lua-lgi-samples.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/lua-lgi-samples-0.6.2/gtk-demo/main.lua
lua-lgi.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gobject -> object, g object
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

lua-lgi-samples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

lua-lgi (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Unversioned so-files
lua-lgi: /usr/lib64/lua/5.1/lgi/corelgilua51.so

MD5-sum check
https://github.com/pavouk/lgi/archive/0.6.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d613d187bb4b1aa1e713ce0528395e12f17ce8950b7375ad451e9fab993daa90
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d613d187bb4b1aa1e713ce0528395e12f17ce8950b7375ad451e9fab993daa90

Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (903b443) last change: 2012-12-20
Buildroot used: fedora-raw-x86_64
Command line :/home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/try-fedora-review -b 889901

Comment 5 Thomas Moschny 2013-01-08 18:16:46 UTC
Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-lgi/lua-lgi-0.6.2-4.fc17.src.rpm

* Mon Jan  7 2013 Thomas Moschny <..> - 0.6.2-4
- Remove unnecessary patch.
- Update license tag: gtk-demo is licensed under LGPLv2+.
- Put fully versioned dependency in subpackage.

Comment 6 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2013-01-08 18:39:31 UTC
Everything is fine, except the licensing (yeah, should have been clear so my bad):

Main package:
License: MIT

# gtk-demo is LGPLv2+
License: LGPLv2+ and MIT

I trust you to fix this up before putting this in repos so:

Comment 7 Thomas Moschny 2013-01-08 19:17:20 UTC
Thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: lua-lgi
Short Description: Lua bindings to GObject libraries
Owners: thm
Branches: f16 f17 f18

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-01-08 19:42:06 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2013-01-09 19:46:49 UTC
lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2013-01-09 19:47:00 UTC
lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2013-01-09 19:47:11 UTC
lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2013-01-10 21:29:20 UTC
lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2013-01-23 01:26:16 UTC
lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2013-01-23 01:32:59 UTC
lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2013-01-23 01:43:07 UTC
lua-lgi-0.6.2-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

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