Spec URL: https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/mujs/mujs.spec SRPM URL: https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/mujs/mujs-0-1.20150202gitc1ad1ba.fc21.src.rpm Description: MuJS is a lightweight Javascript interpreter designed for embedding in other software to extend them with scripting capabilities. Fedora Account System Username: psabata
Taking the review. I looked up our guidelines for static libraries. Relevant parts is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries. This package follows thems. Fortunately programs linking to mujs will not need FESCo exception ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Programs_which_don.27t_need_to_notify_FESCo). Is there any plan of mujs providing a shared library? Where does "and MIT" come from? Afaics, the package is AGPL as a whole, and the only two things which could have a license are the executable and the static library, which are both AGPL. Some suggestions: - Add '%global _docdir_fmt %{name}' so there's just one license dir for both subpackages - 'make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}' can be replaced with '%makeinstall' ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1219422-mujs/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Matches exception as described above. [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. [-]: 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. [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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: mujs-devel. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mujs- devel OK. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. Please add %check with make test. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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: mujs-0-1.20150202gitc1ad1ba.fc23.x86_64.rpm mujs-devel-0-1.20150202gitc1ad1ba.fc23.x86_64.rpm mujs-0-1.20150202gitc1ad1ba.fc23.src.rpm mujs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) embeddable -> embedded mujs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mujs mujs-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libmujs.a mujs-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/mujs.h mujs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) embeddable -> embedded mujs.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mujs-c1ad1ba.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mujs-debuginfo-0-1.20150202gitc1ad1ba.fc23.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- mujs-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/lib64/libmujs.a mujs-devel.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/include/mujs.h It would be nice to fix at least the header file. mujs.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) embeddable -> embedded mujs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mujs 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. OK. Requires -------- mujs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mujs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- mujs-devel: mujs-devel mujs-devel(x86-64) mujs-static mujs: mujs mujs(x86-64)
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > Is there any plan of mujs providing a shared library? Not that I am aware. > Where does "and MIT" come from? Afaics, the package is AGPL as a whole, and > the only two things which could have a license are the executable and the > static library, which are both AGPL. From jsdtoa.c and utf.c, both being used by the library. > Some suggestions: > - Add '%global _docdir_fmt %{name}' so there's just one license dir for both > subpackages This sounds good, I'll consider it. > - 'make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}' can be replaced with '%makeinstall' Probably, however, I don't find it any nicer or better and our guidelines explicitly forbid using it when `make install DESTDIR...' works. (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used) Thanks for the review.
(In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #2) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > > Is there any plan of mujs providing a shared library? > > Not that I am aware. OK. > > Where does "and MIT" come from? Afaics, the package is AGPL as a whole, and > > the only two things which could have a license are the executable and the > > static library, which are both AGPL. > > From jsdtoa.c and utf.c, both being used by the library. Then this doesn't matter: the license specified is the license of the binary packages (or stuff in the binary packages), which is all AGPLv3+, so the license should be specified as AGPLv3+ [1]. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field > > Some suggestions: > > - Add '%global _docdir_fmt %{name}' so there's just one license dir for both > > subpackages > > This sounds good, I'll consider it. > > > - 'make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}' can be replaced with '%makeinstall' > > Probably, however, I don't find it any nicer or better and our guidelines > explicitly forbid using it when `make install DESTDIR...' works. > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used) Yikes, I meant %make_install.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #3) > (In reply to Petr Šabata from comment #2) > > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > > > Is there any plan of mujs providing a shared library? > > > > Not that I am aware. > OK. > > > > Where does "and MIT" come from? Afaics, the package is AGPL as a whole, and > > > the only two things which could have a license are the executable and the > > > static library, which are both AGPL. > > > > From jsdtoa.c and utf.c, both being used by the library. > Then this doesn't matter: the license specified is the license of the binary > packages (or stuff in the binary packages), which is all AGPLv3+, so the > license should be specified as AGPLv3+ [1]. > > [1] > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field The binary is built from source licensed under both AGPLv3+ and MIT terms. What's the problem here? Why should the tag list only one fo these two just because upstream doesn't mention the other in the README file? These files were written by different people and I doubt the mujs author is relicensing them in this project. > > > Some suggestions: > > > - Add '%global _docdir_fmt %{name}' so there's just one license dir for both > > > subpackages > > > > This sounds good, I'll consider it. > > > > > - 'make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}' can be replaced with '%makeinstall' > > > > Probably, however, I don't find it any nicer or better and our guidelines > > explicitly forbid using it when `make install DESTDIR...' works. > > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > > Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used) > Yikes, I meant %make_install. I still like the current variant better.
> > > > Where does "and MIT" come from? Afaics, the package is AGPL as a whole, and > > > > the only two things which could have a license are the executable and the > > > > static library, which are both AGPL. > > > > > > From jsdtoa.c and utf.c, both being used by the library. > > Then this doesn't matter: the license specified is the license of the binary > > packages (or stuff in the binary packages), which is all AGPLv3+, so the > > license should be specified as AGPLv3+ [1]. > > > > [1] > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field > > The binary is built from source licensed under both AGPLv3+ and MIT terms. > What's the problem here? Why should the tag list only one fo these two just > because upstream doesn't mention the other in the README file? If you combine sources under MIT and GPL (any version of GPL) to produce a binary, the binary is always under GPL. MIT license is "upwards" compatible with GPL, and when you combine both the resulting derived product is licensed with the stronger one, i.e. GPL. This is core requirement of GPL. So the MIT source is not important for the binary packages, because no component of the binary packages is MIT licensed anymore. > > > > Some suggestions: > > > > - Add '%global _docdir_fmt %{name}' so there's just one license dir for both > > > > subpackages > > > > > > This sounds good, I'll consider it. > > > > > > > - 'make install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}' can be replaced with '%makeinstall' > > > > > > Probably, however, I don't find it any nicer or better and our guidelines > > > explicitly forbid using it when `make install DESTDIR...' works. > > > (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/ > > > Guidelines#Why_the_.25makeinstall_macro_should_not_be_used) > > Yikes, I meant %make_install. > > I still like the current variant better. OK.
Okay, that makes sense. Changed the license tag and added that definition for %{_docdir_fmt}. Updated SPEC: https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/mujs/mujs.spec Updated SRPM: https://psabata.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/mujs/mujs-0-2.20150202gitc1ad1ba.fc22.src.rpm
Looks good. Package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mujs Short Description: An embeddable Javascript interpreter Upstream URL: http://mujs.com/ Owners: psabata Branches: f22 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thank you both.
mujs-0-2.20150202gitc1ad1ba.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mujs-0-2.20150202gitc1ad1ba.fc22
mujs-0-2.20150202gitc1ad1ba.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.