spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.10.1-1/quickjs-ng.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.10.1-1/quickjs-ng-0.10.1-1.fc42.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132786864 Description: QuickJS is a small and embeddable JavaScript engine. It aims to support the latest ECMAScript specification. FAS username: suve
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9052488 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2366696-quickjs-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09052488-quickjs-ng/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file LICENSE is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Since quickjs-ng and quickjs-ng-devel depend on quickjs-ng-libs, that is where you should put the license file: %files libs %license LICENSE Since the -docs subpackage can be installed on its own, it needs a copy, too. %files docs %license LICENSE https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#subpackage-licensing - I got worried when I saw this: %{_libdir}/libqjs.so.%{version} since building the shared-library path from the version when the SONAME version is version-based can lead to undetected SONAME version bumps, and is not in the spirit of https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_listing_shared_library_files. However, I see that the SONAME version is actually just 0, so %{_libdir}/libqjs.so.0 safely lists it manually. $ objdump -x usr/lib64/libqjs.so.0.10.1 | grep SONAME SONAME libqjs.so.0 There is still a change needed here, though. Only the unversioned shared library link, %{_libdir}/libqjs.so should be in the -devel package, as both versioned files/links may be needed at runtime. Therefore, move %{_libdir}/libqjs.so.0 to the -libs subpackage, %{_libdir}/libqjs.so.%{version} %{_libdir}/libqjs.so.0 See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_devel_packages. - The file libunicode-table.h is generated using data from ftp://ftp.unicode.org/Public/16.0.0/ucd via unicode_download.sh and unicode_gen.c. It should therefore probably be considered to be licensed Unicode-3.0, or possibly (MIT AND Unicode-3.0): https://www.unicode.org/license.txt https://spdx.org/licenses/Unicode-3.0.html https://www.unicode.org/copyright.html This should be documented in the License field, and the license text needs to be included. (Ideally, you would also ask upstream to distribute the Unicode-3.0 license text.) - You don’t need to BR make directly when you are only using it via cmake. You can omit this: BuildRequires: make (After https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/CMake_ninja_default, the BR won’t even be true, although the cmake BR will still bring make into the buildroot.) On the other hand, if you end up using the Makefile to run the tests, you should leave the BR on make. - You have a %check section, %check %ctest but it is not useful, because the tests can’t be run via CMake. Internal ctest changing into directory: /builddir/build/BUILD/quickjs-ng-0.10.1-build/quickjs-0.10.1/redhat-linux-build Test project /builddir/build/BUILD/quickjs-ng-0.10.1-build/quickjs-0.10.1/redhat-linux-build No tests were found!!! Please make an effort to figure out how to run the tests. The Makefile is a good place to start. Ideally, you could run something like this: LD_LIBRARY_PATH='%{buildroot}%{_libdir}' %make_build test It looks like this uses the official ECMAScript Conformance Test Suit https://github.com/tc39/test262 as a git submodule, so you would have to include that as an additional source. I have not investigated what else might be required, or whether there are any insurmountable obstacles to running the tests, but it is certainly worth attempting. - This could be a real issue: quickjs-ng.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/qjs Because I don’t have time to fully understand it myself, I raised it with upstream at https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/issues/1055. - Man pages for command-line tools are always desired but not mandatory: quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjs quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjsc https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_manpages ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License". 101 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2366696-quickjs- ng/licensecheck.txt I think the license of Unicode data needs to be considered. See Issues. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. See Issues. [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 13105 bytes in 10 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Issues noted individually. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: 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 quickjs- ng-libs , quickjs-ng-devel , quickjs-ng-docs [?]: Package functions as described. Running the tests would really help build confidence. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=132830204 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. There is a %check, but it doesn’t correctly run the tests. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: quickjs-ng-0.10.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm quickjs-ng-libs-0.10.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm quickjs-ng-devel-0.10.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm quickjs-ng-docs-0.10.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm quickjs-ng-0.10.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmphhqejisq')] checks: 32, packages: 5 quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjs quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjsc quickjs-ng-libs.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libqjs.so.0.10.1 quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-documentation quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation quickjs-ng.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/qjs quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libqjs.so.0 libqjs.so.0.10.1 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 29 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: quickjs-ng-debuginfo-0.10.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm quickjs-ng-libs-debuginfo-0.10.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpt03o1fzr')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 18 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 6 quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjs quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary qjsc quickjs-ng-libs.x86_64: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib64/libqjs.so.0.10.1 quickjs-ng.x86_64: W: no-documentation quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation quickjs-ng.x86_64: E: missing-call-to-setgroups-before-setuid /usr/bin/qjs quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib64/libqjs.so.0 libqjs.so.0.10.1 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings, 42 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/archive/v0.10.1/quickjs-ng-0.10.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4e917eea3bb6051a0551fdd3aac45199ff705fa08920c15b824a08c5fbb032e4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e917eea3bb6051a0551fdd3aac45199ff705fa08920c15b824a08c5fbb032e4 Requires -------- quickjs-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libqjs.so.0()(64bit) quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) quickjs-ng-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3.1)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) quickjs-ng-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(x86-64) libqjs.so.0()(64bit) quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64) quickjs-ng-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- quickjs-ng: quickjs-ng quickjs-ng(x86-64) quickjs-ng-libs: libqjs.so.0()(64bit) quickjs-ng-libs quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64) quickjs-ng-devel: cmake(qjs) quickjs-ng-devel quickjs-ng-devel(x86-64) quickjs-ng-docs: quickjs-ng-docs Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2366696 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: fonts, Ocaml, Python, Perl, R, Haskell, Java, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Artur, are you still working on this?
I haven't really worked on this since, but I can get back to it after the weekend.
spec: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.11.0-1/quickjs-ng.spec srpm: https://suve.fedorapeople.org/review/quickjs-ng-0.11.0-1/quickjs-ng-0.11.0-1.fc43.src.rpm koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=138809171 - Updated to v0.11.0. - Fixed the license text potentially not being installed. - Added Unicode-3.0 to the license tag. The text is now also installed. - Added help2man-generated manpages. - Tests are now ran properly.
Created attachment 2113559 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9052488 to 9781809
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9781809 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2366696-quickjs-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09781809-quickjs-ng/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
The test262 archive has an “overall” license of BSD-3-Clause, and some files are MPL-2.0. Those are fine, and it’s correct that these aren’t listed in the License since the test suite doesn’t contribute to the licenses of the binary RPMs. However, there is also a PDF copy of ECMA TR-104, with the following license on page iv (PDF page 6): ---------- "COPYRIGHT NOTICE © 2016 Ecma International This document may be copied, published and distributed to others, and certain derivative works of it may be prepared, copied, published, and distributed, in whole or in part, provided that the above copyright notice and this Copyright License and Disclaimer are i ncluded on all such copies and derivative works. The only derivative works that are permissible under this Copyright License and Disclaimer are: (i) works which incorporate all or portion of this document for the purpose of providing commentary or explanation (such as an annotated version of the document), (ii) works which incorporate all or portion of this document for the purpose of incorporating features that provide accessibility, (iii) translations of this document into languages other than English an d into different formats and (iv) works by making use of this specification in standard conformant products by implementing (e.g. by copy and paste wholly or partly) the functionality therein. However, the content of this document itself may not be modified in any way, including by removing the copyright notice or references to Ecma International, except as required to translate it into languages other than English or into a different format. The official version of an Ecma International document is the English language version on the Ecma International website. In the event of discrepancies between a translated version and the official version, the official version shall govern. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by Ecma International or its successors or assigns. This document and the information contained herein is provided on an "AS IS" basis and ECMA INTERNATIONAL DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE." ---------- This seems like it *might* be a potentially-acceptable documentation license, but I couldn’t find a match for it among the licenses in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/allowed-licenses/#_allowed_documentation_licenses, and I’m not sure it has an SPDX identifier. Even though this PDF file isn’t packaged in the binary RPMs, anything in the source RPMs is still redistributed, and needs to be under a license acceptable for Fedora. You’ll need to submit this license for review as a documentation license at https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/issues. If approved, all is well; if not acceptable, you’ll need to strip this file out of the test262 archive *before* uploading to the lookaside cache. You can write a script to handle that and include it as an additional source, or write down instructions for doing it manually in a comment in the spec file.