Spec URL: https://jgu.fedorapeople.org/js-web-socket-js.spec SRPM URL: https://jgu.fedorapeople.org/js-web-socket-js-1.0.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: HTML5 Web Socket implementation powered by Flash Fedora Account System Username: jgu Note: this package ships only the java script components. The SWF assets are not shipped as shipping binary components in Fedora without building from source is forbidden, and currently Fedora does not have the Apache Flex SDK packaged. At present this package doesn't comply with the javascript packaging guidelines as it ships the pre-minified version of the .js file - I haven't yet worked out how to minify a .js file during package building - any help would be gratefully received :).
Spec URL: https://jgu.fedorapeople.org/js-web-socket-js.spec SRPM URL: https://jgu.fedorapeople.org/js-web-socket-js-1.0.2-2.fc20.src.rpm * Fri Mar 6 2015 Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood> - 1.0.2-2 - Minify swfobject.js from the source js file during build using slimit - Specify noarch for package With this change, the package is now ready for review :)
Spec URL: https://jgu.fedorapeople.org/js-web-socket-js.spec SRPM URL: https://jgu.fedorapeople.org/js-web-socket-js-1.0.2-3.fc20.src.rpm * Fri Mar 6 2015 Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood> - 1.0.2-3 - Own {_jsdir}/web-socket-js directory - Introduce macro for web-socket-js string
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. Licenses found: "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mskalick/Packages/1199189-js-web-socket-js/licensecheck.txt [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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: No rpmlint messages. [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. ===== 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. [-]: 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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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-web-socket-js-1.0.2-3.fc23.noarch.rpm js-web-socket-js-1.0.2-3.fc23.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- js-web-socket-js (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): web-assets-filesystem Provides -------- js-web-socket-js: js-web-socket-js Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gimite/web-socket-js/archive/v1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 897eca41be58a0bdd549d91e99fa3a3cd06e261882e16d1acdd091b103439280 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 897eca41be58a0bdd549d91e99fa3a3cd06e261882e16d1acdd091b103439280 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1199189 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-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
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: js-web-socket-js Short Description: HTML5 Web Socket implementation powered by Flash Upstream URL: https://github.com/gimite/web-socket-js Owners: jgu Branches: f20 f21 f22 InitialCC: jgu
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Ok, all checked in and built. Thanks very much for the review Marek.