https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
Bug ID: 1295209 Summary: Review Request: lua-fun - functional programming library for Lua and LuaJIT Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: roman@tsisyk.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/rtsisyk/e3b7d7d5574096aa22e2/raw/8b30fb45... SRPM URL: https://gist.github.com/rtsisyk/e3b7d7d5574096aa22e2/raw/8b30fb45845b2e223b3... Description: Lua Fun is a high-performance functional programming library designed for LuaJIT tracing just-in-time compiler.
The library provides a set of more than 50 programming primitives typically found in languages like Standard ML, Haskell, Erlang, JavaScript, Python and even Lisp. High-order functions such as map, filter, reduce, zip will help you to write simple and efficient functional code. Fedora Account System Username: rtsisyk Buildbot: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12394857
This .src.rpm provides packages both for lua-5.3 and luajit-2.0+.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #1 from Roman Tsisyk roman@tsisyk.com --- I'm upstream maintainer. My other packages: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293100 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295217
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zbyszek@in.waw.pl Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- You should use %license for COPYING.md [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text].
Spec file name does not match srpm file name (it's missing the dash).
Please add an empty build section: %build # nothing to do
Add a dot at the end of both %description's.
--
It would be great if you could do two-three reviews of other packages (e.g. anything from https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html), so that potential sponsors know that you know the packaging guidelines and review workflow. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines and the fedora-review tool are very useful.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #3 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- rtsisyk's scratch build of lua-fun-0.1.2-1.fc24.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12484090
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #4 from Roman Tsisyk roman@tsisyk.com ---
You should use %license for COPYING.md [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text].
Fixed.
Spec file name does not match srpm file name (it's missing the dash).
Fixed.
Please add an empty build section: %build # nothing to do
Fixed.
Add a dot at the end of both %description's.
Fixed.
Spec URL: https://gist.githubusercontent.com/rtsisyk/e3b7d7d5574096aa22e2/raw/7ae6bd94... SRPM URL: https://gist.github.com/rtsisyk/e3b7d7d5574096aa22e2/raw/7ae6bd941a36d554d64... Buildbot: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12484092
--
It would be great if you could do two-three reviews of other packages (e.g. anything from https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html), so that potential sponsors know that you know the packaging guidelines and review workflow. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines and the fedora-review tool are very useful.
Thanks a lot for your review for all my three packages! Your input is very helpful for me. I continuously improve my RPM skills by studying guidelines and policies and making packages for software I use and/or maintain in upstream. I think that review of some other packages should be also useful for this purpose. I will take a look on some NEW packages soon.
Please feel free to contact me if there is anything else to improve in my packages. Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Roman Tsisyk from comment #4)
Thanks a lot for your review for all my three packages! Your input is very helpful for me.
I'm happy to help.
I continuously improve my RPM skills by studying guidelines and policies and making packages for software I use and/or maintain in upstream. I think that review of some other packages should be also useful for this purpose. I will take a look on some NEW packages soon.
Yes, please do some reviews and paste the links here. I can sponsor you into the packagers group.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #6 from Roman Tsisyk roman@tsisyk.com --- I'm currently reviewing couple packages:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297215 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1297821
The last one is mostly ok, but have some troubles with GPLv2 libraries linked to ASL 2.0 binary. dnsdist reporter is working on review fixes.
I plan to review some more packages this weekend.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Everything looks great. Package is APPROVED.
The reviews are good too, very thorough. I now added you to packagers. Welcome!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #8 from Roman Tsisyk roman@tsisyk.com --- Thanks a lot! I see that I need to choose package collections for my new pkgdb request. Should this package go to master (=rawhide?) or it is also possible to select, say, EPEL7?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Package_Maintainers
- If you are an existing Fedora package maintainer, you can maintain EPEL packages by becoming a maintainer or comaintainer of an existing EPEL package, which you can apply for in pkgdb. You can also request EPEL branches for your Fedora package and maintain them for EPEL with a Package SCM request.
-----
Who will make a decision about packages I reviewed (#1297821 #1297215)? I still in doubt about license problems in #1297821.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #9 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- (In reply to Roman Tsisyk from comment #8)
Thanks a lot! I see that I need to choose package collections for my new pkgdb request. Should this package go to master (=rawhide?) or it is also possible to select, say, EPEL7?
Normally new packages go into all active Fedora branches (currently master, F23, F22), unless there's some reason not to (e.g. rawhide-only dependencies, etc). You can put your package in EPEL too, if you care about RHEL/CentOS, and are willing to support the package. In my experience packages in EPEL rarely get bug reports, so the burden is mostly in reading the additional packaging guidelines [1] and having a slightly more complicated package and of course dealing with outdated dependencies.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging
- If you are an existing Fedora package maintainer, you can maintain EPEL packages by becoming a maintainer or comaintainer of an existing EPEL package, which you can apply for in pkgdb. You can also request EPEL branches for your Fedora package and maintain them for EPEL with a Package SCM request.
Who will make a decision about packages I reviewed (#1297821 #1297215)? I still in doubt about license problems in #1297821.
#1297821 should be left alone until the issue is resolved upstream, or the submitter withdraws. It is probably best leave it assigned to you, so that other people don't look at it needlessly.
It would be great if you assigned 1297215 to yourself and proceeded with the review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #10 from Roman Tsisyk roman@tsisyk.com --- I've made a minor release in the upstream after fixing some problem with the stock Lua 5.3 from lua.org and have updated the wording a little bit. Minor changes, nothing serious.
Spec URL: https://gist.github.com/rtsisyk/e3b7d7d5574096aa22e2/raw/d54461d572fe047a91a... SRPM URL: https://gist.github.com/rtsisyk/e3b7d7d5574096aa22e2/raw/d54461d572fe047a91a...
I'm sending this package to pkgdb right now. Thanks!
---
#1297821 should be left alone until the issue is resolved upstream, or the submitter withdraws. It is probably best leave it assigned to you, so that other people don't look at it needlessly.
OK
It would be great if you assigned 1297215 to yourself and proceeded with the review.
OK, I'll take care of it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/lua-fun
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #12 from Roman Tsisyk roman@tsisyk.com --- I have finished with the my first package! [1] [1]: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/lua-fun/
Thanks a lot! Can I close this ticket?
-----
P.S. I'll also send a greeting email to devel@, as required by [2]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Intro...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #13 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Normally you'd close the ticket when the package is built in rawhide, if only building for rawhide, or simply list this bug as "fixed" by the update, when creating updates for F23 and lower.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #14 from Roman Tsisyk roman@tsisyk.com --- I pushed specs to all four branches (f24, f23, f22, epel7). What else should be done from my side? Should I use Bodhi for f22, f23? [1] It is not so clear for me after studying available documentation.
[1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Submi...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #15 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbyszek@in.waw.pl --- Now you should release updates for all branches (except f24). This is best done through the web interface, because it allows doing one update for all branches. Go to https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/new, and specify lua-fun in Packages, this bug in Related bugs, and check all Candidate Builds.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-913bb8547c
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-56433d5b18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-913bb8547c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-913bb8547c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-596707fc4d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-913bb8547c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-596707fc4d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-56433d5b18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
Denis Fateyev denis@fateyev.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |denis@fateyev.com
--- Comment #23 from Denis Fateyev denis@fateyev.com ---
Should I use Bodhi for f22, f23? [1] It is not so clear for me after studying available documentation. [1]: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Submi...
Small addition: as Zbigniew said above, normally you can use Bodhi web interface to create package updates. But you can also use "fedpkg update" for the same purpose - it's a CLI interface to the same functionality.
As it's seen the package updates https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-56433d5b18 and https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-596707fc4d already reached 7 days in testing, so you can push them to stable just clicking on a green button on the page top.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-02-02 14:22:03
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1295209
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lua-fun-0.1.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org