[Bug 551763] New: Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

Summary: Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Summary: Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL
                    library
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail], [e-mail]
   Estimated Hours: 0.0
    Classification: Fedora

Spec URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/lua-sec/lua-sec.spec
SRPM URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/lua-sec/lua-sec-0.4-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description:
Lua binding for OpenSSL library to provide TLS/SSL communication.
It takes an already established TCP connection and creates a secure
session between the peers.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #1 from Johan Cwiklinski   2010-01-01 15:51:26 EDT ---
rpmlint is clean for all produced packages.
SRPM builds fine in mock.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Johan Cwiklinski  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |551765

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Adam Goode  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #2 from Adam Goode  2010-02-16 10:35:33 EST ---
There seems to be a lot of duplicate code from luasocket here. Do you think it
is possible to figure out if some of it can be removed (since luasec depends on
luasocket anyway), or at least figure out how much code is duplicated? I
mention this because of this:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #3 from Johan Cwiklinski  2010-02-16 15:15:04 EST ---
I really do no know, I'll take a look at that.
I did not pay attention code should be duplicated here :)

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #4 from Johan Cwiklinski  2010-02-20 10:08:01 EST ---
Looks like file embedded from luasocket are from an older version, but the one
in the repositories should be used I guess.

Problem is that luasocket doe not provide any -devel packages including .h
files luasec should require. What can I do? Do I have to open a bug against
luasocket for it to provide a -devel package?

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #5 from Adam Goode  2010-02-23 01:25:29 EST ---
Hmm. I think the correct thing to do is to get the necessary changes merged
back into luasocket. I am not sure how easy it would be to get a new release of
luasocket with these changes, there hasn't been a release in a while. Also, I
am not sure how safe it would be for luasec to require "socket.core", because
that would really tie luasec to the internals of the C interfaces. (It would
probably be ok.)

It looks like only a tiny amount of changes would be necessary. io.h, socket.h,
usocket.c?

Possibly it would make sense to merge luasocket and luasec together into one
package at some point. luasocket is lacking IPv6, and this would require a new
luasocket, so maybe it could just include luasec all together.

Practially speaking, if we want to move forward with luasec and prosody in
Fedora soon, probably we should try to get a FESCO exemption for luasec's
duplicate code from luasocket and then get a new luasocket/luasec released
upstream that fixes these problems. Then IPv6 can be next.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Jan Kaluža  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #6 from Jan Kaluža  2010-08-06 04:32:17 EDT ---
Hi Johan,
what's the current state, please? I would like to see Prosody in Fedora. If you
haven't tried so far, I can contact luasocket author to find out his opinion of
possible merge with luasec.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Adam Goode  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |504493

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #7 from Adam Goode  2010-08-10 14:40:20 EDT ---
I think luasocket is pretty much completed, the upstream considers it finished,
if I remember. Another big issue here is IPv6 support, which luasocket does not
support and I don't think ever really will.

I commented on the prosody bugtracker on the IPv6 bug:
http://code.google.com/p/lxmppd/issues/detail?id=68#c6

I think that nixio is the way forward, since it takes care of IPv6 and SSL all
in one.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Thom Carlin  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |needinfo?([e-mail]
                   |                            |g)

--- Comment #8 from Thom Carlin  2011-02-18 18:11:43 EST ---
Adam, any updates on this?

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Adam Goode  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?([e-mail] |
                   |g)                          |

--- Comment #9 from Adam Goode  2011-02-20 13:30:17 EST ---
There have been no changes: IPv6 is still not supported, and luasec is still a
fork of luasocket. I consider both of these blockers for this review.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Thom Carlin  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |needinfo?([e-mail])

--- Comment #10 from Thom Carlin  2011-02-22 12:53:25 EST ---
Johan, how do you feel about nixio vs. lua-sec?

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #11 from Adam Goode  2011-02-22 23:14:34 EST ---
The main reason for this package is to run prosody. You probably want to
convince prosody upstream to use nixio instead of luasocket and luasec.
Otherwise, there isn't much point to packaging nixio.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Johan Cwiklinski  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?([e-mail])   |

--- Comment #12 from Johan Cwiklinski  2011-02-23 01:52:03 EST ---
Since I've opened that review request, I've stopped to maintain packages in
Fedora repositories. I do not really know what to do with this request, should
it be closed?

Anyways, Adam is right, the only reason for me to make a package such as
lua-sec was to run the Prosody jabber (see
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551765) server over SSL.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #13 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi  2011-02-23 13:51:21 EST ---
Does anybody want to take over this package submission?  (Adam?)  If not we
should probably close it and if someone wants to take it up in the future, they
can either reopen this request or start a new one.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #14 from Adam Goode  2011-02-23 14:10:57 EST ---
No, this package is a dead end as it stands.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #15 from Thom Carlin  2011-02-23 14:18:06 EST ---
What about Prosody?

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Johan Cwiklinski  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |WONTFIX
        Last Closed|                            |2011-02-23 14:25:16

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #16 from Adam Goode  2011-02-23 15:06:40 EST ---
I love prosody and use it myself. If it can be built without lua-sec, then it
should go into Fedora. Lack of IPv6 support is unfortunate, but not a total
showshopper in my opinion. lua-sec being a fork of luasocket is.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #17 from Matej Cepl  2011-05-23 12:48:24 EDT ---
Just (In reply to comment #15)
> What about Prosody?

just to note bug 551765 comment 21.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Adam Goode  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #18 from Jan Kaluža  2012-03-02 01:40:17 EST ---
According to the last Fesco meeting forks are allowed and if I understand it
well, it should be possible to review lua-sec now (If I'm not right, please
correct me):
> At the 2012-02-27 meeting we agreed to forks are allowed provided they do not
> conflict or interfere with other packages. FPC may add additional guidelines to
> forks as they see fit

-- https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/810

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Matěj Cepl  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|CLOSED                      |ASSIGNED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]          |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?
           Keywords|                            |Reopened

--- Comment #19 from Matěj Cepl  2012-03-02 08:01:06 EST ---
In view of comment 18, reopening this bug and taking over the review.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #20 from Matěj Cepl  2012-03-02 09:46:51 EST ---
Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review

$ rpmlint -i *.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$

+ MUST: package named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
changed from luasec to lua-sec 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: 712158d60207bdbb6215fc7e07d8db24
+ MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture - build in koji, 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 koji (http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3846510)
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

Just a nitpicks:
- please fix lua requirement as shown above.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #21 from Johan Cwiklinski  2012-03-06 15:05:48 EST ---
I've upgraded the package to latest upstream release (0.4.1).

I'm unsure about lua requirement, since lua-sec requires lua-socket, wich one
should take care of lua requirement; anyways, I've added the requirement to the
new specfile version.

Spec URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/lua-sec/lua-sec.spec
SRPM URL:
http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/lua-sec/lua-sec-0.4.1-1.fc16.trashy.src.rpm

Package builds fine in mock; rpmlint is clean.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Matěj Cepl  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #22 from Matěj Cepl  2012-03-06 17:05:57 EST ---
(In reply to comment #21)
> I'm unsure about lua requirement, since lua-sec requires lua-socket, wich one
> should take care of lua requirement; anyways, I've added the requirement to the
> new specfile version.

It is not only requirements, but also packages are required to require packages
which provide directories they use.
> Spec URL: http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/lua-sec/lua-sec.spec
> SRPM URL:
> http://odysseus.x-tnd.be/fedora/lua-sec/lua-sec-0.4.1-1.fc16.trashy.src.rpm
>
> Package builds fine in mock; rpmlint is clean.

Builds in koji as well
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3860851

APPROVED!

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #23 from Matěj Cepl  2012-03-06 17:24:03 EST ---
One more thing, please remove %{__mkdir} macros from

%{__mkdir} -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{luapkgdir}
%{__mkdir} -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{lualibdir}

It is a bad mannerism and use of these macros is strongly discouraged by the
Packaging guidelines.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Johan Cwiklinski  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #24 from Johan Cwiklinski  2012-03-06 17:37:52 EST ---
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: lua-sec
Short Description: Lua binding for OpenSSL library
Owners: trasher
Branches: f15 f16 el6
InitialCC: trasher

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #25 from Johan Cwiklinski  2012-03-06 17:38:44 EST ---
(In reply to comment #23)
> One more thing, please remove %{__mkdir} macros from
> [...]

OK, I'll fix that. Thank you for the review :)

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla  2012-03-06 21:13:32 EST ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Added f17.

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |MODIFIED

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System  2012-03-08 12:15:10 EST ---
lua-sec-0.4.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-sec-0.4.1-2.fc17

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System  2012-03-08 12:15:22 EST ---
lua-sec-0.4.1-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-sec-0.4.1-2.fc15

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System  2012-03-08 12:15:33 EST ---
lua-sec-0.4.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-sec-0.4.1-2.el6

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System  2012-03-08 12:16:05 EST ---
lua-sec-0.4.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/lua-sec-0.4.1-2.fc16

[Bug 551763] Review Request: lua-sec - Lua binding for OpenSSL library

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=551763

Fedora Update System  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|MODIFIED                    |ON_QA

--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System  2012-03-08 20:07:13 EST ---
lua-sec-0.4.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.