Bug 1078364 (js-sizzle) - Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine
Summary: Review Request: js-sizzle - A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine
Alias: js-sizzle
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom Hughes
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 977122 977125 977128 1083838
Blocks: js-reviews 1078368 js-jquery1
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-03-19 16:36 UTC by T.C. Hollingsworth
Modified: 2014-06-05 10:39 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-06-05 10:39:19 UTC
Type: ---
tom: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description T.C. Hollingsworth 2014-03-19 16:36:58 UTC
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
A pure-JavaScript CSS selector engine designed to be easily dropped in to a host


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:

Comment 1 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2014-04-03 04:59:26 UTC
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.

Comment 2 T.C. Hollingsworth 2014-05-31 06:40:05 UTC
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

Comment 3 T.C. Hollingsworth 2014-05-31 08:08:09 UTC
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

Comment 4 Tom Hughes 2014-05-31 09:46:02 UTC
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?

Comment 5 T.C. Hollingsworth 2014-05-31 09:55:27 UTC
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.

Comment 6 Tom Hughes 2014-05-31 10:00:43 UTC
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.

Comment 7 Tom Hughes 2014-06-02 18:19:17 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[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
[?]: %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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: js-sizzle-1.10.19-2.fc21.noarch.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:'

js-sizzle (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


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

Comment 8 Tom Hughes 2014-06-02 18:23:08 UTC
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.

Comment 9 T.C. Hollingsworth 2014-06-03 09:22:28 UTC
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@gmail.com> - 1.10.19-3
- follow the github SourceURL guidelines

Comment 10 Tom Hughes 2014-06-03 09:23:31 UTC
Great. That all looks good now, so package is approved.

Comment 11 T.C. Hollingsworth 2014-06-03 09:40:14 UTC
Thanks!  I just fixed the Source URL in the other jquery reviews accordingly also.

Comment 12 T.C. Hollingsworth 2014-06-03 09:41:44 UTC
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

Comment 13 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-06-03 12:23:17 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 14 T.C. Hollingsworth 2014-06-05 10:39:19 UTC
Built for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=521370

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.