Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/js-future/SPECS/js-sizzle.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/js-future/SRPMS/js-sizzle-1.10.16-0.1.fc20.src.rpm FAS: patches Summary: A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine designed to be easily dropped in to a host library. -- This is an experimental package that does not yet meet Fedora standards. It uses npm to install build dependencies to work around ones missing from the distribution. However, the package is otherwise fully built during the rpmbuild process and the binary RPM is identical to what would be produced by a proper spec. Feel free to use it to test dependent packages. It also available in this copr: http://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/patches/js-future
I added a review request for nodejs-gzip-js, so start chipping away at the dependency list for this. It would be great if you could look if the way that gzip-js is packaged looks usable for sizzle.
Ready for prime time now. :-) Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-sizzle.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-sizzle-1.10.19-1.fc20.src.rpm
I've now fixed an annoying bug in grunt and can drop the hack I added in %prep to make it build. This now requires the most recent nodejs-grunt to build. Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-sizzle.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-sizzle-1.10.19-2.fc20.src.rpm
So what's the story with the dependencies? I started on reviewing gzip, deflate and crc32 but both deflate and crc32 have been removed as dependencies and although gzip is still listed as a dependency it looks like you are patching it out in the spec?
It's a dependency for running the test suite, which I'm not running right now due to a host of missing dependencies. I didn't bother pruning devDependencies since nothing cares about them and we're not installing this package.json, but if you'd prefer I can '%nodejs_fixdep --dev -r' the testsuite-related ones we're skipping for now.
No that's fine, just checking if it was still worth pursuing them, and it sounds like it is - they're all pending on action from the packager at the moment.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [-]: 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]: 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 4 files. [!]: 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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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). [?]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: js-sizzle-1.10.19-2.fc21.noarch.rpm js-sizzle-1.10.19-2.fc21.src.rpm js-sizzle.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided js-sizzle-source 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint js-sizzle js-sizzle.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided js-sizzle-source 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- js-sizzle (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): web-assets-filesystem Provides -------- js-sizzle: js-sizzle js-sizzle-static Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jquery/sizzle/archive/1.10.19/js-sizzle-1.10.19.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 80548cc12609b7efd66b286847abb19f15efbcc88b413751399035ba524fc22a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 80548cc12609b7efd66b286847abb19f15efbcc88b413751399035ba524fc22a Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1078364 Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
I haven't managed to run the tests, but other than that this generally looks good. I think the only problem I can see is that the source URL does not comply with the rules at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github for packaging from github.
Thanks for the review! Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-sizzle.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/jquery/js-sizzle-1.10.19-3.fc20.src.rpm * Tue Jun 03 2014 T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth> - 1.10.19-3 - follow the github SourceURL guidelines
Great. That all looks good now, so package is approved.
Thanks! I just fixed the Source URL in the other jquery reviews accordingly also.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: js-sizzle Short Description: A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine Upstream URL: http://sizzlejs.com/ Owners: patches jamielinux Branches: f20 epel7 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Built for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=521370