Spec URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-js.spec SRPM URL: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-js-0.4-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: A Friendly Erlang to Javascript Binding. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2565145 rpmlint: sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/erlang-js-* 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: This is one of the requirements for Riak. Unfortunately this library requires UTF-8 support in js, which is enabled only in F-14+, so no luck for EPEL and F-12/F-13 users so far.
Ver. 0.5.0: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-js.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-js-0.5.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Koji scratchbuild for F-14: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2715012 rpmlint: work ~/Desktop: rpmlint erlang-js-* erlang-js.src:10: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 5) erlang-js.src: W: invalid-url Source0: basho-erlang_js-erlang_js-0.5.0-0-g5350ed2.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. work ~/Desktop:
Ver. 0.5.0-2: http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-js.spec http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlang-js-0.5.0-2.fc12.src.rpm Dropped unneeded runtime dependency on eunit
REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable (+) rpmlint is not silent, some messages can be ignored: - Source URL: You can append the file name to the Github URL and then you have a valid source URL. It will work to download the file this way. But content and tarball name differ, cf. recent discussion on fedora-devel and http://support.github.com/discussions/repos/4565-sha-in-download-filename-does-not-match-directory + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (ASL 2.0). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. # sha256sum ../../SOURCES/basho-erlang_js-erlang_js-0.5.0-0-g5350ed2.tar.gz 5dbe617c22a89e888aaa576df9adedd0bf3c78e6eecf07a88ee48e48aba609b9 ../../SOURCES/basho-erlang_js-erlang_js-0.5.0-0-g5350ed2.tar.gz Github Download is currently down and I cannot download the tarball myself. Since I have reviewed packages by Peter before I trust him that the package contains the pristine source file. + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. You use $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as a variable, but macros for everything else. Consider changing this, but since this is what rpmdev-newspec creates by default I consider this to be acceptable. + The package contains code, or permissible content. + No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Looks very good. Unit tests make me confident it works although I cannot try it myself. The macro usage is a little spot, but nothing that stops this review from succeeding. The README file does not contain any real information to use the package, only that you shouldn't try on Windows and building instructions. It can be omitted from %doc section. APPROVED.
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: erlang-js Short Description: A Friendly Erlang to Javascript Binding Owners: peter Branches: F-14 F-15 EL-6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
erlang-js-0.5.0-2.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-js-0.5.0-2.fc14
erlang-js-0.5.0-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-js-0.5.0-2.el6
erlang-js-0.5.0-2.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-js-0.5.0-2.fc15
erlang-js-0.5.0-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update erlang-js'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-js-0.5.0-2.fc15
erlang-js-0.5.0-2.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
erlang-js-0.5.0-2.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
erlang-js-0.5.0-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.