Bug 891436 (lua-markdown) - Review Request: lua-markdown - Markdown module for Lua
Summary: Review Request: lua-markdown - Markdown module for Lua
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: lua-markdown
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Stanislav Ochotnicky
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: lua-lgi lua-ldoc
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-01-02 22:44 UTC by Thomas Moschny
Modified: 2013-01-15 02:34 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-01-15 02:21:22 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
sochotni: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Thomas Moschny 2013-01-02 22:44:21 UTC
Spec URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-markdown/lua-markdown.spec
SRPM URL: http://thm.fedorapeople.org/lua-markdown/lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc17.src.rpm

Description:
This is an implementation of the popular text markup language Markdown
in pure Lua.  Markdown can convert documents written in a simple and
easy to read text format to well-formatted HTML.

Fedora Account System Username: thm

Comment 1 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2013-01-03 12:42:18 UTC
I'll review this

Comment 2 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2013-01-03 13:23:09 UTC
Summary: It's unfortunate that upstream uses unversioned filenames but package itself is OK. It would be nice to use "cp -p" to preserve timestamps, but that's extremely minor detail.

APPROVED

Package Review
==============

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



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

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FESCO 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.
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[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.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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]: Resultdir need to be empty before review
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.

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

Generic:
[-]: 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 (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

It would be nice to use cp -p

[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
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

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

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
lua-markdown.noarch: W: no-documentation
lua-markdown.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary markdown.lua
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint lua-markdown
lua-markdown.noarch: W: no-documentation
lua-markdown.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary markdown.lua
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
lua-markdown (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    lua



Provides
--------
lua-markdown:
    lua-markdown



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://www.frykholm.se/files/markdown.lua :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d24d35f249229c2a0ab2370dab96fd6fa6cf62719deac217d15a37c6703730c0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d24d35f249229c2a0ab2370dab96fd6fa6cf62719deac217d15a37c6703730c0
http://www.frykholm.se/files/markdown-tests.lua :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2f4c07d0123fc3d682bae9927469dbaca146ce1184f8a9dc865f6d861a41c68b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2f4c07d0123fc3d682bae9927469dbaca146ce1184f8a9dc865f6d861a41c68b


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 891436

Comment 3 Thomas Moschny 2013-01-04 18:29:01 UTC
Thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: lua-markdown
Short Description: Markdown module for Lua
Owners: thm
Branches: f16 f17 f18
InitialCC:

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-01-04 18:36:25 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2013-01-05 14:48:55 UTC
lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc17

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2013-01-05 14:49:26 UTC
lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc16

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2013-01-05 14:51:34 UTC
lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc18

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2013-01-05 21:53:10 UTC
lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2013-01-15 02:21:25 UTC
lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2013-01-15 02:24:28 UTC
lua-markdown-0.32-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2013-01-15 02:34:14 UTC
lua-markdown-0.32-1.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.