Spec URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/mozjs31.spec SRPM URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/mozjs31-31.2.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: JavaScript is the Netscape-developed object scripting language used in millions of web pages and server applications worldwide. Netscape's JavaScript is a super set of the ECMA-262 Edition 3 (ECMAScript) standard scripting language, with only mild differences from the published standard. Fedora Account System Username: pcpa
I'll take this
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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 Please try to do versioned library. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text I'm not sure if it's false positive, but I think it's because no %license in devel subpkg - delete INSTALL file from -devel subpkg, it's not needed - I see from licensecheck that not all sources from js/src is under MPL license. there also BSD, MIT, LGPLv2, - (OPTIONAL) you can use `%make_install` instead of `make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}` ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL", "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Public domain", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "MPL (v2.0)", "MPL (v2.0) BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "BSD (3 clause) GPL (v2)". 10782 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/brain/1202131-mozjs31/licensecheck.txt [ ]: 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. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: 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. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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: mozjs31-31.2.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm mozjs31-devel-31.2.0-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm mozjs31-31.2.0-1.fc23.src.rpm mozjs31-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mozjs31-devel.x86_64: W: install-file-in-docs /usr/share/doc/mozjs31-devel/INSTALL 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- mozjs31-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config mozjs31(x86-64) pkgconfig(nspr) mozjs31 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.4)(64bit) libicudata.so.54()(64bit) libicui18n.so.54()(64bit) libicuuc.so.54()(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) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- mozjs31-devel: mozjs31-devel mozjs31-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(mozjs-31) mozjs31: libmozjs-31.so()(64bit) libmozjs-31.so(mozjs_31)(64bit) mozjs31 mozjs31(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- mozjs31: /usr/lib64/libmozjs-31.so Source checksums ---------------- https://people.mozilla.org/~sstangl/mozjs-31.2.0.rc0.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 85d7079ede6828277f26581cdf3f5773f4205df6312f768e1434ce9ec3911621 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 85d7079ede6828277f26581cdf3f5773f4205df6312f768e1434ce9ec3911621 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1202131 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
> - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages > > Please try to do versioned library. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning This is somewhat common pattern now, e.g. look at find /usr/lib64 -maxdepth 1 -name lib*-*.so -a -type f But I can rename (and add soname) it from libmozjs-31.so to libmozjs-31.so.1 and add a symlink in the devel package. > - 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. > Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > I'm not sure if it's false positive, but I think it's because no %license in > devel subpkg I think it is a false positive: $ rpm -ql mozjs31|grep LICENSE /usr/share/licenses/mozjs31/LICENSE I also updated the license line to match what licensecheck found. Those are mostly stragglers in the test subdir, or in bundled, but not built subtrees, like icu and ffi. The actual js sources should be all MPL2.0, but for safety, as build or test scripts have a different license, it was updated. > - delete INSTALL file from -devel subpkg, it's not needed Removed. As extra notes: o I built the package based on mozjs24, but added extra configure options, and build requires to ensure it uses system icu, system zlib, and system ffi. o Enabled %check. mozjs24 did not use it, 0ad bundled build builds with --disable-tests. It pass 95%+ of the tests, so for now it is mostly to check if it is not completely broken, i.e. if fails only 15+ test out of 1k ish tests. o It does not run smp make because it has some dependency missing. At first I preferred to just disable it, as the package actually builds quite fast. Update: Spec URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/mozjs31.spec SRPM URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/mozjs31-31.2.0-2.fc23.src.rpm
(In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #3) > > - Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. > > Note: Unversioned so-files directly in %_libdir. > > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages > > > > Please try to do versioned library. > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > > Guidelines#Downstream_.so_name_versioning > > This is somewhat common pattern now, e.g. look at > find /usr/lib64 -maxdepth 1 -name lib*-*.so -a -type f > But I can rename (and add soname) it from libmozjs-31.so > to libmozjs-31.so.1 and add a symlink in the devel > package. Doesn't makes sense in our case. > > > - 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. > > Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) > > See: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > I'm not sure if it's false positive, but I think it's because no %license in > > devel subpkg > > I think it is a false positive: > $ rpm -ql mozjs31|grep LICENSE > /usr/share/licenses/mozjs31/LICENSE > > I also updated the license line to match what > licensecheck found. Those are mostly stragglers > in the test subdir, or in bundled, but not built > subtrees, like icu and ffi. The actual js sources > should be all MPL2.0, but for safety, as build > or test scripts have a different license, it > was updated. > > > - delete INSTALL file from -devel subpkg, it's not needed > > Removed. > > As extra notes: > o I built the package based on mozjs24, but added > extra configure options, and build requires to > ensure it uses system icu, system zlib, and system > ffi. > o Enabled %check. mozjs24 did not use it, 0ad bundled > build builds with --disable-tests. It pass 95%+ of > the tests, so for now it is mostly to check if it > is not completely broken, i.e. if fails only 15+ > test out of 1k ish tests. > o It does not run smp make because it has some > dependency missing. At first I preferred to just > disable it, as the package actually builds quite > fast. > > Update: > Spec URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/mozjs31.spec > SRPM URL: https://pcpa.fedorapeople.org/mozjs31-31.2.0-2.fc23.src.rpm Thanks. APPROVED. Feel free to add me as co-maintainer.
Thanks Igor! Not sure if I can add co-maintainers in the scm request, and do not know your FAS name :) But feel free to ask for co-maintainer in pkgdb once it is available.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mozjs31 Short Description: JavaScript interpreter and libraries Upstream URL: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Mozilla/Projects/SpiderMonkey/Releases/31 Owners: pcpa Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
0ad-0.0.18-1.fc21,0ad-data-0.0.18-1.fc21,mozjs31-31.2.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/0ad-0.0.18-1.fc21,0ad-data-0.0.18-1.fc21,mozjs31-31.2.0-2.fc21
0ad-0.0.18-1.fc22,0ad-data-0.0.18-1.fc22,mozjs31-31.2.0-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/0ad-0.0.18-1.fc22,0ad-data-0.0.18-1.fc22,mozjs31-31.2.0-2.fc22
Package 0ad-0.0.18-1.fc21, 0ad-data-0.0.18-1.fc21, mozjs31-31.2.0-2.fc21: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing 0ad-0.0.18-1.fc21 0ad-data-0.0.18-1.fc21 mozjs31-31.2.0-2.fc21' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-4053/0ad-0.0.18-1.fc21,0ad-data-0.0.18-1.fc21,mozjs31-31.2.0-2.fc21 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
0ad-0.0.18-1.fc22, 0ad-data-0.0.18-1.fc22, mozjs31-31.2.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
0ad-0.0.18-1.fc21, 0ad-data-0.0.18-1.fc21, mozjs31-31.2.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.