https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1754957 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #12 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m@xxxxxxxxx> --- - Valid shorthand for Apache 2:0 is ASL 2.0: License: ASL 2.0 - Typo: required: in %description devel and %description -n lua5.1-luv-devel %description devel Files required for lua-luv development - Typo: Hopefully in %description and %description -n lua5.1-luv The best docs currently are the libuv docs themselves. Hopefully soon we'll have a copy locally tailored for lua. - Source is 404: Getting https://github.com/luvit/luv/archive/1.30.1/luv-1.30.1-0.tar.gz to ./luv-1.30.1-0.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 130 0 130 0 0 185 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 184 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 --:--:-- 0:00:01 --:--:-- 0 curl: (22) The requested URL returned error: 404 Not Found Seems you should include an extraver variable for the version number after the - in https://github.com/luvit/luv/releases %global extraver 1 […] Name: lua-luv Version: 1.30.1 Release: 3.%{extraver}%{?dist} […] Source0: https://github.com/luvit/luv/archive/%{version}-%{extraver}/luv-%{version}-%{extraver}.tar.gz […] %autosetup -p1 -n luv-%{version}-%{extraver} […] %changelog * Mon Sep 30 2019 Andreas Schneider <asn@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1.30.1-3.1 - Fixed BR for lua 5.3 - Devel subpackages should probably requires their main packages counterpart and drop the doc/license from %files %package devel Summary: Development files for lua-luv Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} […] %package -n lua5.1-luv-devel Summary: Development files for lua5.1-luv Requires: lua5.1-luv%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} […] %files devel %dir %{lua_53_incdir}/luv/ %{lua_53_incdir}/luv/lhandle.h %{lua_53_incdir}/luv/lreq.h %{lua_53_incdir}/luv/luv.h %{lua_53_incdir}/luv/util.h […] %files -n lua5.1-luv-devel %dir %{lua_51_incdir}/luv/ %{lua_51_incdir}/luv/lhandle.h %{lua_51_incdir}/luv/lreq.h %{lua_51_incdir}/luv/luv.h %{lua_51_incdir}/luv/util.h - Patch application fails on latest version: + cd luv-1.30.1-1 + /usr/bin/chmod -Rf a+rX,u+w,g-w,o-w . + /usr/bin/cat /builddir/build/SOURCES/luv-1.30-include_lua_header.patch + /usr/bin/patch -p1 -s --fuzz=0 --no-backup-if-mismatch 1 out of 1 hunk FAILED -- saving rejects to file src/luv.c.rej error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.zcFESt (%prep) It is already included and thus needs to be dropped. - missing -m flag: install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{lua_53_incdir}/luv - Use "install -p" to keep timestamp # lua-5.3 install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{lua_53_libdir} install -pm 0755 %{lua_53_builddir}/luv.so %{buildroot}%{lua_53_libdir}/luv.so install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{lua_53_incdir}/luv for f in lhandle.h lreq.h luv.h util.h; do install -pm 0644 src/$f %{buildroot}%{lua_53_incdir}/luv/$f done # lua-5.1 install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{lua_51_libdir} install -pm 0755 %{lua_51_builddir}/luv.so %{buildroot}%{lua_51_libdir}/luv.so install -d 0755 %{buildroot}%{lua_51_incdir}/luv for f in lhandle.h lreq.h luv.h util.h; do install -pm 0644 src/$f %{buildroot}%{lua_51_incdir}/luv/$f done 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. [x]: 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Apache License (v2.0)". 61 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/lua-luv/review- lua-luv/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/include/lua-5.3 [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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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 20480 bytes in 2 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 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 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: [-]: 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lua5.1-luv , lua5.1-luv-devel [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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. [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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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-luv-1.30.1-3.1.fc32.x86_64.rpm lua-luv-devel-1.30.1-3.1.fc32.x86_64.rpm lua5.1-luv-1.30.1-3.1.fc32.x86_64.rpm lua5.1-luv-devel-1.30.1-3.1.fc32.x86_64.rpm lua-luv-debuginfo-1.30.1-3.1.fc32.x86_64.rpm lua-luv-debugsource-1.30.1-3.1.fc32.x86_64.rpm lua-luv-1.30.1-3.1.fc32.src.rpm lua-luv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libuv -> lib lua-luv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libuv -> lib lua-luv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US luvit -> fluvial lua-luv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uv -> UV, iv, u lua-luv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Hopfully -> Hopefully, Hop fully, Hop-fully lua-luv.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 lua-luv.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/lua/5.3/luv.so lua-luv-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 lua-luv-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation lua5.1-luv.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libuv -> lib lua5.1-luv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libuv -> lib lua5.1-luv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US luvit -> fluvial lua5.1-luv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uv -> UV, iv, u lua5.1-luv.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 lua5.1-luv.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/lib64/lua/5.1/luv.so lua5.1-luv-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 lua5.1-luv-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation lua-luv-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 lua-luv-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 lua-luv.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) libuv -> lib lua-luv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libuv -> lib lua-luv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US luvit -> fluvial lua-luv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uv -> UV, iv, u lua-luv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Hopfully -> Hopefully, Hop fully, Hop-fully lua-luv.src: W: invalid-license Apache-2.0 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 23 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
