Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: lua-socket - Network support for the Lua language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440678 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-04 20:05 EST ------- Builds OK; rpmlint says: lua-socket.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/lua-socket-2.0.2/LICENSE Uses 0xA9 for the copyright symbol; will need a pass through iconv. Looks like this has the same issue with compiler flags and the debuginfo package that the other packages had. rpm's automatic dependency calculation decides this provides core.so, which probably isn't right. But that's a bug in rpm, not in this package. You might consider packaging the samples and the stuff in etc as %doc. Up to you. * source files match upstream: 4fd9c775cfd98841299851e29b30176caf289370fea1ff1e00bb67c2d6842ca6 luasocket-2.0.2.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. X compiler flags are incorrect. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly X debuginfo package is incomplete. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. * final provides and requires are sane: core.so()(64bit) lua-socket = 2.0.2-1.fc9 = lua >= 5.1 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I do not know how to test this package. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review