Bug 2366696

Summary: Review Request: quickjs-ng - small and embeddable JavaScript engine
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Artur Frenszek-Iwicki <fedora>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Ben Beasley <code>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: code, fschwarz, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: AutomationTriaged
Target Release: ---Flags: code: fedora-review+
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
URL: https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: quickjs-ng-0.16.1-1.fc45 Doc Type: ---
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2026-08-08 10:12:20 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9052488 to 9781809
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9781809 to 9973492
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9973492 to 10497414
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10497414 to 10569914
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10569914 to 10799080
none
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10799080 to 10811386 none

Description Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2025-05-15 21:34:25 UTC 
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.10.1-1/quickjs-ng.spec
srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.10.1-1/quickjs-ng-0.10.1-1.fc42.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132786864

Description:
QuickJS is a small and embeddable JavaScript engine.
It aims to support the latest ECMAScript specification.

FAS username:
suve
Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2025-05-15 21:43:09 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9052488
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2366696-quickjs-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09052488-quickjs-ng/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Comment 2 Ben Beasley 2025-05-16 13:43:17 UTC 
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text

  Since quickjs-ng and quickjs-ng-devel depend on quickjs-ng-libs, that is
  where you should put the license file:

    %files libs
    %license LICENSE

  Since the -docs subpackage can be installed on its own, it needs a copy, too.

    %files docs
    %license LICENSE

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing

- I got worried when I saw this:

    %{_libdir}/libqjs.so.%{version}

  since building the shared-library path from the version when the SONAME
  version is version-based can lead to undetected SONAME version bumps, and is
  not in the spirit of
  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files.

  However, I see that the SONAME version is actually just 0, so

    %{_libdir}/libqjs.so.0

  safely lists it manually.

    $ objdump -x usr/lib64/libqjs.so.0.10.1 | grep SONAME
      SONAME               libqjs.so.0

  There is still a change needed here, though. Only the unversioned shared
  library link,

    %{_libdir}/libqjs.so

  should be in the -devel package, as both versioned files/links may be needed
  at runtime. Therefore, move

    %{_libdir}/libqjs.so.0

  to the -libs subpackage,

    %{_libdir}/libqjs.so.%{version}
    %{_libdir}/libqjs.so.0

  See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages.

- The file libunicode-table.h is generated using data from
  ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/16.0.0/ucd via unicode_download.sh and
  unicode_gen.c. It should therefore probably be considered to be licensed
  Unicode-3.0, or possibly (MIT AND Unicode-3.0):

    https://www.unicode.org/license.txt
    https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-3.0.html
    https://www.unicode.org/copyright.html

  This should be documented in the License field, and the license text needs to
  be included. (Ideally, you would also ask upstream to distribute the
  Unicode-3.0 license text.)

- You don’t need to BR make directly when you are only using it via cmake. You
  can omit this:

    BuildRequires: make

  (After https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CMake_ninja_default, the BR
  won’t even be true, although the cmake BR will still bring make into the
  buildroot.)

  On the other hand, if you end up using the Makefile to run the tests, you
  should leave the BR on make.

- You have a %check section,

    %check
    %ctest

  but it is not useful, because the tests can’t be run via CMake.

      Internal ctest changing into directory: /builddir/build/BUILD/quickjs-ng-0.10.1-build/quickjs-0.10.1/redhat-linux-build
    Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/quickjs-ng-0.10.1-build/quickjs-0.10.1/redhat-linux-build
    No tests were found!!!

  Please make an effort to figure out how to run the tests. The Makefile is a
  good place to start. Ideally, you could run something like this:

    LD_LIBRARY_PATH='%{buildroot}%{_libdir}' %make_build test

  It looks like this uses the official ECMAScript Conformance Test Suit
  https://github.com/tc39/test262 as a git submodule, so you would have to
  include that as an additional source. I have not investigated what else might
  be required, or whether there are any insurmountable obstacles to running the
  tests, but it is certainly worth attempting.

- This could be a real issue:

    quickjs-ng.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/qjs

  Because I don’t have time to fully understand it myself, I raised it with
  upstream at https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/issues/1055.

- Man pages for command-line tools are always desired but not mandatory:

    quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjs
    quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjsc

    https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT
     License". 101 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2366696-quickjs-
     ng/licensecheck.txt

     I think the license of Unicode data needs to be considered. See Issues.

[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

     See Issues.

[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 13105 bytes in 10 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

     Issues noted individually.

[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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:
[-]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in quickjs-
     ng-libs , quickjs-ng-devel , quickjs-ng-docs
[?]: Package functions as described.

     Running the tests would really help build confidence.

[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.

     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132830204

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     There is a %check, but it doesn’t correctly run the tests.

[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]: 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: quickjs-ng-0.10.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-libs-0.10.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-devel-0.10.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-docs-0.10.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          quickjs-ng-0.10.1-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmphhqejisq')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjs
quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjsc
quickjs-ng-libs.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libqjs.so.0.10.1
quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-documentation
quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
quickjs-ng.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/qjs
quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libqjs.so.0 libqjs.so.0.10.1
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 29 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: quickjs-ng-debuginfo-0.10.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-libs-debuginfo-0.10.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmpt03o1fzr')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 6

quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjs
quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjsc
quickjs-ng-libs.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libqjs.so.0.10.1
quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-documentation
quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
quickjs-ng.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/qjs
quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libqjs.so.0 libqjs.so.0.10.1
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 42 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/archive/v0.10.1/quickjs-ng-0.10.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4e917eea3bb6051a0551fdd3aac45199ff705fa08920c15b824a08c5fbb032e4
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e917eea3bb6051a0551fdd3aac45199ff705fa08920c15b824a08c5fbb032e4


Requires
--------
quickjs-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

quickjs-ng-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
    libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

quickjs-ng-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
quickjs-ng:
    quickjs-ng
    quickjs-ng(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-libs:
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs
    quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-devel:
    cmake(qjs)
    quickjs-ng-devel
    quickjs-ng-devel(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-docs:
    quickjs-ng-docs



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2366696
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Python, Perl, R, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comment 3 Ben Beasley 2025-10-23 11:33:24 UTC 
Artur, are you still working on this?
Comment 4 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2025-10-24 02:20:11 UTC 
I haven't really worked on this since, but I can get back to it after the weekend.
Comment 5 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2025-11-09 15:39:10 UTC 
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.11.0-1/quickjs-ng.spec
srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.11.0-1/quickjs-ng-0.11.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138809171

- Updated to v0.11.0.
- Fixed the license text potentially not being installed.
- Added Unicode-3.0 to the license tag. The text is now also installed.
- Added help2man-generated manpages.
- Tests are now ran properly.
Comment 6 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-09 15:54:37 UTC 
Created attachment 2113559 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9052488 to 9781809
Comment 7 Fedora Review Service 2025-11-09 15:54:39 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9781809
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2366696-quickjs-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09781809-quickjs-ng/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Comment 8 Ben Beasley 2025-11-18 07:25:16 UTC 
The test262 archive has an “overall” license of BSD-3-Clause, and some files are MPL-2.0. Those are fine, and it’s correct that these aren’t listed in the License since the test suite doesn’t contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs. However, there is also a PDF copy of ECMA TR-104, with the following license on page iv (PDF page 6):

----------
"COPYRIGHT NOTICE

© 2016 Ecma International

This document may be copied, published and distributed to others, and certain derivative works of it
may be prepared, copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, provided that the above
copyright notice and this Copyright License and Disclaimer are i ncluded on all such copies and
derivative works. The only derivative works that are permissible under this Copyright License and
Disclaimer are:

(i)	works which incorporate all or portion of this document for the purpose of providing commentary or
	explanation (such as an annotated version of the document),

(ii)	works which incorporate all or portion of this document for the purpose of incorporating features
	that provide accessibility,

(iii)	translations of this document into languages other than English an d into different formats and

(iv)	works by making use of this specification in standard conformant products by implementing (e.g.
	by copy and paste wholly or partly) the functionality therein.

However, the content of this document itself may not be modified in any way, including by removing the
copyright notice or references to Ecma International, except as required to translate it into languages
other than English or into a different format.

The official version of an Ecma International document is the English language version on the Ecma
International website. In the event of discrepancies between a translated version and the official
version, the official version shall govern.
The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by Ecma International or
its successors or assigns.

This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and ECMA
INTERNATIONAL DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE
ANY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR
A PARTICULAR PURPOSE."
----------

This seems like it *might* be a potentially-acceptable documentation license, but I couldn’t find a match for it among the licenses in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/#_allowed_documentation_licenses, and I’m not sure it has an SPDX identifier.

Even though this PDF file isn’t packaged in the binary RPMs, anything in the source RPMs is still redistributed, and needs to be under a license acceptable for Fedora. You’ll need to submit this license for review as a documentation license at https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues. If approved, all is well; if not acceptable, you’ll need to strip this file out of the test262 archive *before* uploading to the lookaside cache. You can write a script to handle that and include it as an additional source, or write down instructions for doing it manually in a comment in the spec file.
Comment 9 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2026-01-03 13:32:45 UTC 
Opened an issue in the fedora-license-data repo: https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues/711

In the meantime, I added some patches to fix test failures on i686 and s390x.
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.11.0-2/quickjs-ng.spec
srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.11.0-2/quickjs-ng-0.11.0-2.fc43.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=140687814
Comment 10 Fedora Review Service 2026-01-04 04:29:22 UTC 
Created attachment 2121021 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9781809 to 9973492
Comment 11 Fedora Review Service 2026-01-04 04:29:25 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9973492
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2366696-quickjs-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09973492-quickjs-ng/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Comment 12 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2026-04-11 10:36:39 UTC 
Updated to v0.14.0.
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.14.0-1/quickjs-ng.spec
srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.14.0-1/quickjs-ng-0.14.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=144290747
Comment 13 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2026-05-18 13:47:01 UTC 
Hey Ben, got a moment to look at this again?
The license-data issue was closed as "allowed-content".
Comment 14 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2026-05-21 21:42:04 UTC 
Updated to v0.15.0.
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.15.0-1/quickjs-ng.spec
srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.15.0-1/quickjs-ng-0.15.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=145726074
Comment 15 Fedora Review Service 2026-05-21 22:10:12 UTC 
Created attachment 2142265 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 9973492 to 10497414
Comment 16 Fedora Review Service 2026-05-21 22:10:14 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10497414
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2366696-quickjs-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10497414-quickjs-ng/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Comment 17 Ben Beasley 2026-05-23 15:54:30 UTC 
I will be happy to take another look at this. I expect it will be at least a week before I get to it.
Comment 18 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2026-06-04 22:55:41 UTC 
Updated to v0.15.1.
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.15.1-1/quickjs-ng.spec
srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.15.1-1/quickjs-ng-0.15.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146257506
Comment 19 Fedora Review Service 2026-06-05 07:14:36 UTC 
Created attachment 2144290 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10497414 to 10569914
Comment 20 Fedora Review Service 2026-06-05 07:14:38 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10569914
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2366696-quickjs-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10569914-quickjs-ng/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Comment 21 Ben Beasley 2026-06-12 13:01:00 UTC 
I think we are almost there!

Package Review
==============

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

===== Issues =====

- Please replace all uses of %{__cmake_builddir} with %{_vpath_builddir}.

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_macros

- Adding Unicode-3.0 license text for data derived from the UCD really ought to
  be suggested upstream. I opened
  https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/pull/1531; please add a link to that PR
  in the spec file.

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/

- You have incorrectly marked SECURITY.md as %license. My suggestion would be
  not to package it at all, since it relates to interacting with upstream. If
  you really want to package it, use %doc.

- Consider packaging README.md as %doc in the -libs subpackage.

- Please use the "-p" or "--preserve-timestamps" option to "install" when
  installing man pages.

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps

  If you like, you can simplify this:

    install -m 755 -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1
    install -m 644 qjs.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/
    install -m 644 qjsc.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/

  as this:

    install -m 644 -p -D -t %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 qjs.1 qjsc.1

  However, see the following:

- The man pages generated by help2man are of very low quality in this case.
  They have a false claim about info pages, which you can fix by passing the
  "--no-info" option. They also have documentation about various command-line
  options jumbled together and reflowed into one paragraph, which you probably
  cannot fix. Given that the generated man pages are a bit of a mess, if you
  are not prepared to maintain man pages by hand, then I think it would be
  better not to ship man pages at all.

- The tests seem to show some errors,

    + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -c tests.conf
    Result: 0/63 errors, 5 excluded
    + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -m -c test262.conf -a
    Result: 96/80958 errors, 4910 excluded, 5858 skipped
    + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -m -c test262.conf -c test262-fast.conf -a
    Result: 92/79986 errors, 5450 excluded, 5804 skipped

  but this doesn’t fail the build, and the output doesn’t say which tests
  failed or how.

  Is it possible to at least get some information about failing tests?

- The uploaded spec file and SRPM differ; in the version in the SRPM, the first
  %cmake invocation is in %prep rather than %build. Please move it back to
  %build, or put it in a %conf section.

- You need to mark %{_docdir}/quickjs/ as documentation (%doc).

  The contents are just 10 relatively small examples for developers; if you
  like, you could simplify matters by moving these into the -devel package and
  dropping the -doc package.

- I don’t think it will make any difference here in practice, but you might
  consider writing

    make codegen QJSC="$(pwd)/%{__cmake_builddir}/qjsc"

  as

    %make_build codegen QJSC="$(pwd)/%{__cmake_builddir}/qjsc"

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make

- If you don’t have concrete plans for an existing package that builds on i686
  to depend on this, consider adding

    ExcludeArch:  %{ix86}

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval

- Please add a comment to the spec file mentioning the licenses involved in the
  test262 source archive, particularly that the “main” license is BSD-3-Clause,
  and that 'ECMA TR-104.pdf' is LicenseRef-ECMA-spec, which is allowed for
  content per
  https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/work_items/711.
  Without these references, it’s much more difficult for someone who stumbles
  across the contents of the test262 source to quickly verify that due
  diligence has been done.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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", "Unicode License
     Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016)", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Mozilla Public
     License 2.0". 56654 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2366696-quickjs-
     ng/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 12653 bytes in 10 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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.

     Please link https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/pull/1531.

[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in quickjs-
     ng-libs , quickjs-ng-devel , quickjs-ng-docs
[x]: Package functions as described.

     (Tests mostly pass.)

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

     See https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/pull/1531.

[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.

     Please link https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/pull/1531 for
     Unicode-3.0 license file.

[-]: 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.

     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146544579

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Result: 96/80958 errors, 4910 excluded, 5858 skipped
     etc.


[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.

     Timestamps are lost when installing man pages.

[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: quickjs-ng-0.15.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-libs-0.15.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-devel-0.15.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-docs-0.15.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          quickjs-ng-0.15.1-1.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmp9f_q0jz2')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
quickjs-ng-docs.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/quickjs-ng-docs/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/quickjs/LICENSE
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 34 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: quickjs-ng-debuginfo-0.15.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-libs-debuginfo-0.15.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmppf6abur9')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 17 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 6

quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
quickjs-ng-docs.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/licenses/quickjs-ng-docs/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/quickjs/LICENSE
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 47 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 1.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/archive/v0.15.1/quickjs-ng-0.15.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c4e813951b7c46845096a948e978c620b11ab4cf5fd622ca09c727ec31f42623
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c4e813951b7c46845096a948e978c620b11ab4cf5fd622ca09c727ec31f42623
https://github.com/tc39/test262/archive/d5e73fc8d2c663554fb72e2380a8c2bc1a318a33/test262-d5e73fc8d2c663554fb72e2380a8c2bc1a318a33.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b5ab25d8eaa9a72f994a36a0f3f2779347148b213da995510199a0e0a7821fc1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b5ab25d8eaa9a72f994a36a0f3f2779347148b213da995510199a0e0a7821fc1


Requires
--------
quickjs-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

quickjs-ng-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    glibc
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

quickjs-ng-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
quickjs-ng:
    quickjs-ng
    quickjs-ng(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-libs:
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs
    quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-devel:
    cmake(qjs)
    quickjs-ng-devel
    quickjs-ng-devel(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-docs:
    quickjs-ng-docs



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/ben/fedora/review/2366696-quickjs-ng/srpm/quickjs-ng.spec	2026-06-05 06:40:24.800843392 +0100
+++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2366696-quickjs-ng/srpm-unpacked/quickjs-ng.spec	2026-06-04 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -86,4 +86,5 @@
 
 %autopatch -p1
+%cmake
 
 
@@ -91,5 +92,4 @@
 # QuickJS comes with an interpreter and a bytecode compiler. The interpreter embeds some bytecode.
 # First, build the compiler and regenerate the bytecode.
-%cmake
 %cmake_build --target qjsc
 make codegen QJSC="$(pwd)/%{__cmake_builddir}/qjsc"


Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2366696
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, Python, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, R, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comment 22 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2026-07-31 14:52:52 UTC 
> Please replace all uses of %{__cmake_builddir} with %{_vpath_builddir}.
Done.

> I opened  https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/pull/1531;
> please add a link to that PR in the spec file.
Done.

> You have incorrectly marked SECURITY.md as %license.
Oops. Changed to %doc.

> Consider packaging README.md as %doc in the -libs subpackage.
Added.

> Is it possible to at least get some information about failing tests?
Added a comment.

> The uploaded spec file and SRPM differ in the version in the SRPM
Ugh, that's what I get for making unnecessary style changes.
Sorry about that.

> The first %cmake invocation is in %prep rather than %build.
> Please move it back to %build, or put it in a %conf section.
Moved back to %build.

> You need to mark %{_docdir}/quickjs/ as documentation (%doc).
Done. Also renamed the directory from quickjs to quickjs-ng.

> The contents are just 10 relatively small examples for developers
Chucked in some documentation from the docs/ directory.
While these are meant to be built to HTML using docusaurus,
they are still perfectly readable markdown files.

> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make
Eh, why not. Added a comment to emphasise the deliberate mixing cmake and make.

> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval
Sure, added.

> Please add a comment to the spec file mentioning the licenses involved
> in the test262 source archive
Done.

re/man pages, I took some time to write man pages based on the --help output
and submitted them upstream. These have been accepted and are now part
of the standard install.

Also, updated to v0.16.0.

spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.16.0-1/quickjs-ng.spec
srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.16.0-1/quickjs-ng-0.16.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148517746
Comment 23 Ben Beasley 2026-07-31 14:57:46 UTC 
Thanks! I’ll revisit this as soon as I have a chance.
Comment 24 Fedora Review Service 2026-07-31 16:52:06 UTC 
Created attachment 2153143 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10569914 to 10799080
Comment 25 Fedora Review Service 2026-07-31 16:52:08 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10799080
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2366696-quickjs-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10799080-quickjs-ng/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Comment 26 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2026-08-04 13:29:57 UTC 
Oh golly, a new bugfix release!

spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.16.1-1/quickjs-ng.spec
srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.16.1-1/quickjs-ng-0.16.1-1.fc44.src.rpm
koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148696980
Comment 27 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-04 13:59:10 UTC 
Created attachment 2153578 [details]
The .spec file difference from Copr build 10799080 to 10811386
Comment 28 Fedora Review Service 2026-08-04 13:59:12 UTC 
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/10811386
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2366696-quickjs-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/10811386-quickjs-ng/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Comment 29 Ben Beasley 2026-08-08 09:38:11 UTC 
Package Review
==============

In general, the issues and suggestions from previous rounds of review have been
addressed, and I didn’t discover any new issues. I think this can be approved
now. It would be nice to improve handling of the test suite, as noted below.

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

===== Issues =====

- The tests seem to show some errors,

    + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -c tests.conf
    Result: 0/89 errors, 9 excluded
    + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -m -c test262.conf -a
    Result: 52/82220 errors, 4802 excluded, 5736 skipped
    + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -m -c test262.conf -c test262-fast.conf -a
    Result: 52/81192 errors, 5370 excluded, 5682 skipped

  but this doesn’t fail the build, and the output doesn’t say which tests
  failed or how.

  Is it possible to at least get some information about failing tests?

  This doesn’t need to block approval, but it’s an area that could perhaps be
  improved.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[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]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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", "Unicode License
     Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016)", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Mozilla Public
     License 2.0". 57124 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2366696-quickjs-
     ng/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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.
[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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 5458 bytes in 2 files.
[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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in quickjs-
     ng-libs , quickjs-ng-devel

     Fully versioned dependencies are correctly on the -libs subpackage.

[x]: Package functions as described.

     (the vast majority of tests pass)

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: 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.

     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=148834220

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Some tests fail, but they don’t fail the build. Is it possible to get more
     information about these failing tests, and perhaps explicitly skip them
     and fail the build when not 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]: 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: quickjs-ng-0.16.1-1.fc45.aarch64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-libs-0.16.1-1.fc45.aarch64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-devel-0.16.1-1.fc45.aarch64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-doc-0.16.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          quickjs-ng-0.16.1-1.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmpqfxtfiq9')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

quickjs-ng-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 36 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: quickjs-ng-debuginfo-0.16.1-1.fc45.aarch64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-libs-debuginfo-0.16.1-1.fc45.aarch64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmppbyge3ml')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 6

quickjs-ng-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 48 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/archive/v0.16.1/quickjs-ng-0.16.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4b3c11f37dab2c58bdeccbaeb23b923fa4a9798a45e50be6af55f3e75b616ea0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4b3c11f37dab2c58bdeccbaeb23b923fa4a9798a45e50be6af55f3e75b616ea0
https://github.com/tc39/test262/archive/5ef1e5723be95296f36afb0386676fed0205869c/test262-5ef1e5723be95296f36afb0386676fed0205869c.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d67ff29d7bcee3493f38b3ef54db068ea5ad6d5a67b67b3f505dfee581dd3879
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d67ff29d7bcee3493f38b3ef54db068ea5ad6d5a67b67b3f505dfee581dd3879


Requires
--------
quickjs-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs(aarch-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

quickjs-ng-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

quickjs-ng-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(aarch-64)
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs(aarch-64)

quickjs-ng-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
quickjs-ng:
    quickjs-ng
    quickjs-ng(aarch-64)

quickjs-ng-libs:
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs
    quickjs-ng-libs(aarch-64)

quickjs-ng-devel:
    cmake(qjs)
    quickjs-ng-devel
    quickjs-ng-devel(aarch-64)

quickjs-ng-doc:
    quickjs-ng-doc



Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2366696
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-aarch64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comment 30 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2026-08-08 09:45:46 UTC 
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/quickjs-ng
Monitoring:
Anitya project is accessible by this link 
`https://release-monitoring.org/project/377081`
 you can modify it manually.
Package wasn't created in Anitya, reason: `Bad Request, some necessary arguments were not provided.`.
Comment 31 Artur Frenszek-Iwicki 2026-08-08 10:12:20 UTC 
Regarding the failing tests, these seem to be ignored due to known bugs or known missing features.
I'll see about editing the test runner to make this clearer (and maybe getting more info from upstream about why each error is ignored).

Closing as RAWHIDE as I don't have a need to build this for F44/F43.