Bug 1558976 - Review Request: mycrypto - Client-side tool for interacting with the Ethereum network
Summary: Review Request: mycrypto - Client-side tool for interacting with the Ethereum...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-NEEDSPONSOR FE-DEADREVIEW
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2018-03-21 12:43 UTC by Rene Jr Purcell
Modified: 2020-08-10 00:57 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-08-10 00:57:51 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rene Jr Purcell 2018-03-21 12:43:09 UTC
Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arsenick/MyLiveCrypto/fedora-27-x86_64/00730408-mycrypto/mycrypto.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arsenick/MyLiveCrypto/fedora-27-x86_64/00730408-mycrypto/mycrypto-3.12.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: This is the second package I submit, It's pretty much an upstream fork from the other package I've made(etherwallet). There's no binary, no real dependency other than a browser. The package install the files in /usr/share/mycrypto/ and copy a .desktop file which open /usr/share/mycrypto/index.html with xdg-open.
Fedora Account System Username: arsenick

Comment 1 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-03-22 09:30:20 UTC
 - Changelog is empty

 - There's a license file https://github.com/MyCryptoHQ/mycrypto.com/blob/master/LICENSE that you must install with %license in %files

Comment 2 Rene Jr Purcell 2018-03-23 03:26:58 UTC
Thanks, changelog has been added, same for the license file.

Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arsenick/MyLiveCrypto/fedora-27-x86_64/00731472-mycrypto/mycrypto.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/arsenick/MyLiveCrypto/fedora-27-x86_64/00731472-mycrypto/mycrypto-3.12.0-2.fc27.src.rpm

I wasn't able to find the LICENSE file in the release zip and I've found I'm not using the source tarball. I'm using the .zip release which seems to be a version where gulp has already been run. So I've read the guideline regarding binary or library and I'm not sure if this fit as a binary, does it ? Should I use the source and run gulp in my specfile ?

Comment 3 Rene Jr Purcell 2018-03-23 21:41:05 UTC
Ok, I guess this answer my question: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:JavaScript#Compilation.2FMinification

I'll create a new version of the spec using the source tarball an use gulp in the %install section. If it's not necessary feel free to let me know, oterwise I'm working on it.

Thanks for your help!

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-10-04 16:44:26 UTC
Use the source and use Gulp in build, then install the whole.

Bump to the latest revision.

Comment 5 Package Review 2020-07-10 00:56:33 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 6 Package Review 2020-08-10 00:57:51 UTC
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.


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