[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2017-05-31 17:28:23



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
libtermkey-0.18-3.el7, libvterm-0-0.2.bzr681.el7, lua-bit32-5.3.0-2.el7,
lua-mpack-1.0.4-2.el7, neovim-0.2.0-2.el7, unibilium-1.2.0-2.el7 has been
pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist,
please make note of it in this bug report.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
libtermkey-0.18-3.el7, libvterm-0-0.2.bzr681.el7, lua-bit32-5.3.0-2.el7,
lua-mpack-1.0.4-2.el7, neovim-0.2.0-2.el7, unibilium-1.2.0-2.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-2017-e55d6f7a83

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
neovim-0.2.0-2.el7 lua-bit32-5.3.0-2.el7 lua-mpack-1.0.4-2.el7
libtermkey-0.18-3.el7 libvterm-0-0.2.bzr681.el7 unibilium-1.2.0-2.el7 has been
submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2017-e55d6f7a83

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997



--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/lua-bit32

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997



--- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
Thanks Charles! I've requested the new package via pkgdb, will link here when
pushing the RPMs to Bodhi.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997

Charles R. Anderson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Charles R. Anderson  ---
Package approved.

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

= 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]: 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 15 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/cra/src/fedora/review/1448997-lua-bit32/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.
[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.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 lua-
 bit32-debuginfo
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
 files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the 

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997



--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
epel7 scratch build:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19493104
(I attached the log since the Koji build logs will get garbage collected)

removed defattr

Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/lua/lua-bit32.spec
SRPM URL:
https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/lua/lua-bit32-5.3.0-2.fc26.src.rpm

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997



--- Comment #4 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
Created attachment 1277743
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1277743=edit
epel7 build log

build log showing no warning when built on EPEL 7 (with Lua 5.1)

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997



--- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim  ---
(In reply to Charles R. Anderson from comment #1)
> I'm not familiar with lua, are these compile warnings expected?
> 
On systems with Lua 5.2+, this is expected - since this is a backport of
functionality introduced in Lua 5.2. (Though if you install this on a system
with Lua 5.2 you get a newer version since the version I'm packaging is derived
from Lua 5.3).

The main use case is to build this for Enterprise Linux 7, which has Lua 5.1 --
neovim makes use of the definitions here.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997



--- Comment #2 from Charles R. Anderson  ---
Should remove %defattr, it isn't needed since EPEL-4:

 Note: %defattr present but not needed

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997



--- Comment #1 from Charles R. Anderson  ---
I'm not familiar with lua, are these compile warnings expected?

+ gcc -O2 -g -pipe -Wall -Werror=format-security -Wp,-D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=2
-fexceptions -fstack-protector-strong --param=ssp-buffer-size=4
-grecord-gcc-switches -specs=/usr/lib/rpm/redhat/redhat-hardened-cc1 -m64 -m
tune=generic -I/usr/include -I./c-api -llua -lm -ldl lbitlib.c -shared -fPIC -o
bit32.so
lbitlib.c:19:0: warning: "luaL_checkunsigned" redefined
 #define luaL_checkunsigned(L, n) ((lua_Unsigned)luaL_checkinteger((L), (n)))

In file included from lbitlib.c:12:0:
/usr/include/lauxlib.h:247:0: note: this is the location of the previous
definition
 #define luaL_checkunsigned(L,a) ((lua_Unsigned)luaL_checkinteger(L,a))

lbitlib.c:20:0: warning: "lua_pushunsigned" redefined
 #define lua_pushunsigned(L, n) (lua_pushinteger(L, (lua_Integer)(n)))

In file included from lbitlib.c:10:0:
/usr/include/lua.h:385:0: note: this is the location of the previous definition
 #define lua_pushunsigned(L,n) lua_pushinteger(L, (lua_Integer)(n))

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1448997] Review Request: lua-bit32 - Backport of Lua bit manipulation library introduced in 5.2

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448997

Charles R. Anderson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||c...@wpi.edu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|c...@wpi.edu
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org