[Bug 2143050] New: Review Request: lua-zlib - Simple streaming interface to zlib for Lua
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
Bug ID: 2143050 Summary: Review Request: lua-zlib - Simple streaming interface to zlib for Lua Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hegjon@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-zlib.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/lua-zlib-1.2-1.fc36.src.rpm
Description: Simple streaming interface to zlib for Lua.
Fedora Account System Username: jonny
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
--- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94219684
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
--- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- A dependency for SILE https://sile-typesetter.org/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2149698
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2149698 [Bug 2149698] Review Request: sile - The SILE Typesetter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pemensik@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- I think variables passed to build must include also LDFLAGS: CFLAGS="%{optflags} -fPIC" LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -shared -fPIC"
And I think %check should also include unit test present in sources:
%check export LUA_CPATH=%{buildroot}%{lua_libdir}/zlib.so lua -e 'local zlib = require "zlib"; print(zlib.version());' lua test.lua
Otherwise it seems ready.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Thanks, I updated the build to include the LDFLAGS.
I did not notice the test.lua, the print(zlib.version()) was just a smoke test since I thought I did not have any unit tests to run.
test.lua also includes the setup of cpath, so %check was updated to only:
%check lua test.lua
Uploaded updated spec+srpm, same URLs.
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=97679291
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pemensik@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Petr Menšík pemensik@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pemensik/fedora/rawhide/2143050-lua- zlib/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: lua-zlib-1.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm lua-zlib-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm lua-zlib-debugsource-1.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm lua-zlib-1.2-1.fc39.src.rpm ========================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpk0cwb_u9')] checks: 31, packages: 4
lua-zlib.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/lua-zlib/README /usr/share/doc/lua-zlib/README =========== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ==========
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: lua-zlib-debuginfo-1.2-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm ========================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpdg856fkn')] checks: 31, packages: 1
=========== 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s ==========
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3
lua-zlib.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/lua/5.4/zlib.so /lib64/libm.so.6 lua-zlib.x86_64: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/lua-zlib/README /usr/share/doc/lua-zlib/README 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- lua-zlib: /usr/lib64/lua/5.4/zlib.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/brimworks/lua-zlib/archive/v1.2/lua-zlib-1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 26b813ad39c94fc930b168c3418e2e746af3b2e80b92f94f306f6f954cc31e7d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 26b813ad39c94fc930b168c3418e2e746af3b2e80b92f94f306f6f954cc31e7d
Requires -------- lua-zlib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) liblua-5.4.so()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1(ZLIB_1.2.2)(64bit) lua(abi) rtld(GNU_HASH)
lua-zlib-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
lua-zlib-debugsource (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- lua-zlib: lua-zlib lua-zlib(x86-64)
lua-zlib-debuginfo: debuginfo(build-id) lua-zlib-debuginfo lua-zlib-debuginfo(x86-64)
lua-zlib-debugsource: lua-zlib-debugsource lua-zlib-debugsource(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2143050 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, Java, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/lua-zlib
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2143050
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Status|POST |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-03-13 21:05:51
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com