Spec URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/mozjs24.spec SRPM URL: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/mozjs24-24.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: <description here> JavaScript is the Netscape-developed object scripting language used in millions of web pages and server applications worldwide. Netscape's JavaScript is a superset of the ECMA-262 Edition 3 (ECMAScript) standard scripting language, with only mild differences from the published standard. Fedora Account System Username: rishi
Typo/spelling nitpick in the description, otherwise seems fine. It would be good to know whether %check could be added (as used in the mozjs17 packaging). Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages Not a problem in this case (or at least, is consistent with mozjs17). ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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: "Public domain", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "MPL (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "MPL (v2.0) BSD (3 clause)". 1042 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/david/checkout/rpms/1051157-mozjs24/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. [-]: 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 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 %doc. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package functions as described. [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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: mozjs24-24.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm mozjs24-devel-24.2.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm mozjs24-24.2.0-1.fc21.src.rpm mozjs24.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede mozjs24-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation mozjs24.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mozjs24-devel mozjs24 mozjs24-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation mozjs24.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US superset -> super set, super-set, supersede mozjs24.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmozjs-24.so /lib64/libplds4.so mozjs24.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmozjs-24.so /lib64/libplc4.so mozjs24.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmozjs-24.so /lib64/libdl.so.2 mozjs24.x86_64: W: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libmozjs-24.so /lib64/libgcc_s.so.1 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mozjs24-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config mozjs24(x86-64) pkgconfig(nspr) mozjs24 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libnspr4.so()(64bit) libplc4.so()(64bit) libplds4.so()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- mozjs24-devel: mozjs24-devel mozjs24-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(mozjs-24) mozjs24: libmozjs-24.so()(64bit) libmozjs-24.so(mozjs_24)(64bit) mozjs24 mozjs24(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- mozjs24: /usr/lib64/libmozjs-24.so Source checksums ---------------- http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/js/mozjs-24.2.0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e62f3f331ddd90df1e238c09d61a505c516fe9fd8c5c95336611d191d18437d8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e62f3f331ddd90df1e238c09d61a505c516fe9fd8c5c95336611d191d18437d8 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1051157 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to David King from comment #1) > Typo/spelling nitpick in the description, otherwise seems fine. It would be > good to know whether %check could be added (as used in the mozjs17 > packaging). mozjs24's test suite is failing. I do not know what to make of it because I am not familiar with this package. I only built it in passing because I noticed that gjs master needs it.
I am also unsure about the licensing. mozjs17 uses "or" to combine the multiple licenses which indicates that it falls under "dual licensing scenarios" [1] and not "multiple licensing scenarios". However I do not know if this is true because LICENSE only talks about MPLv2.0 but there is thing called "Secondary License(s)" in the text. Same applies for mozjs24. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios
The MPLv2.0 in the tag should be fine, as it is the "effective" licence of the binary package and most restrictive license of the included files (and the one provided in the tarball): http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:FAQ#What_is_.22effective_license.22_and_do_I_need_to_know_that_for_the_License:_tag.3F MPLv2 is nicer that the MPLv1.1, and automatically compatible with the LGPL and GPL unless the "Secondary Licences" exclusion is used (which it is not, in this case). The GPLv3+ and LGPL2+ files (1 of each licence) in the tarball are not included in the binary package, just used during testing and to create some Unicode data, so I do not think that anything other than MPLv2.0 is necessary.
Spec: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/mozjs24.spec SRPM: http://rishi.fedorapeople.org/mozjs24-24.2.0-2.fc20.src.rpm
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mozjs24 Short Description: JavaScript interpreter and libraries Owners: rishi Branches: InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thanks for the review, David.
mozjs24 is required for updating 0ad. See bug 1100875 Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: mozjs24 New Branches: f20 f19 Owners: rishi InitialCC:
*** Bug 1100875 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
As Debarshi has mentioned, the latest release of the game 0ad depends on mozjs24. Any chance that this bug could be reopened for packaging mozjs24 for Fedora 20? With Fedora 21 still several months away, I fear that Fedora may stay behind on 0ad developments. The next 0ad alpha release, which could very well happen a few weeks after Fedora 21 goes stable, might then require a newer versions of mozjs. This could lead us back to the same unfortunate situation. Thank you very much for any efforts that could be made on this issue.