Spec URL: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~tchol/fedora/coffeescript.spec SRPM URL: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~tchol/fedora/coffeescript-1.1.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: CoffeeScript is a little language that compiles into JavaScript. Underneath all of those embarrassing braces and semicolons, JavaScript has always had a gorgeous object model at its heart. CoffeeScript is an attempt to expose the good parts of JavaScript in a simple way. The golden rule of CoffeeScript is: "It's just JavaScript". The code compiles one-to-one into the equivalent JS, and there is no interpretation at runtime. You can use any existing JavaScript library seamlessly (and vice-versa). The compiled output is readable and pretty-printed, passes through JavaScript Lint without warnings, will work in every JavaScript implementation, and tends to run as fast or faster than the equivalent handwritten JavaScript.
$ rpmlint SPECS/coffeescript.spec SPECS/coffeescript.spec:64: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/../coffee-script SPECS/coffeescript.spec:65: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/../lib/nodejs/coffee-script SPECS/coffeescript.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jashkenas-coffee-script-1.1.2-0-g1a652a9.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/coffeescript-1.1.2-1.fc15.noarch.rpm coffeescript.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffeescript.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment coffeescript.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versa -> avers, verse, verso coffeescript.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib coffeescript.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cake coffeescript.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary coffee 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Closing all Node.js-related reviews per bug 732552.
TC, would you consider reviving this review request given that node is now going to land in Fedora?
Here you go. :-) Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4869840
Great, thanks! I can take this review. At first glance everything looks good. I will brush up on Node packaging guidelines tomorrow and then do a proper review.
One question... could you consider shipping the "browser" version of coffee-script.js (with all modules included) as well? I think you can just add: MINIFY=false bin/cake build:browser in %build and then install extras/coffee-script.js to somewhere suitable. It would really help with my efforts to package PhantomJS.
(In reply to comment #5) > Great, thanks! > > I can take this review. At first glance everything looks good. I will brush > up on Node packaging guidelines tomorrow and then do a proper review. There's a draft here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts:Node.js I wrote them, so I'd hope this package is compliant. ;-) Please note that FESCo has asked that I hold off on pushing stable any Node.js packages until FPC has approved those guidelines. Toshio Kuratomi of the FPC is already okay with them, so we hope to have that done soon. In the meantime, we can still get this into Rawhide and F18 updates-testing. (In reply to comment #6) > One question... could you consider shipping the "browser" version of > coffee-script.js (with all modules included) as well? Sure. I'll even subpackage it so it won't drag in Node unnecessarily.
Guys, could you please drop the runtime dependency on Node.js? It seems [1] that I'll be forced to depend on coffee-script package in rubygem-coffee-script-source package. I would really hate to have Node.js on my system just because of it. Thank you for considering. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-January/008866.html
I can definitely provide a coffee-script-common package that provides what rubygem-coffee-script needs without depending on node. The main coffee-script package should ship /usr/bin/coffee and /usr/bin/cake and thus will need to still to depend on node, though. Does rubygem-coffee-script-source really need to exist? Can't rubygem-coffee-source just be told to look in /usr/share/coffee-script (yeah it's lib now, but this is a case where it should definitely go to share)? If it's really necessary, I think it should be built from this SRPM. It'll be easier to maintain that way, since it will always bumps version along with the rest of coffee-script.
(In reply to comment #9) > I can definitely provide a coffee-script-common package that provides what rubygem-coffee-script needs without depending on node. That works for me, if that will be standardized. > Does rubygem-coffee-script-source really need to exist? Can't > rubygem-coffee-source just be told to look in /usr/share/coffee-script (yeah > it's lib now, but this is a case where it should definitely go to share)? I am afraid that rubygem-coffee-script and rubygem-coffee-script-source, both has to stay in Fedora. The problem is that coffee-script depends on coffee-script-source and this dependency will be reflected in Gemfile used by Bundler. If I attempt to drop the dependency, we will differ from other platforms. On the other hand, I should definitely check with upstream, if they could drop the dependency, since it is there just for convenience.
(In reply to comment #10) > On the other hand, I should definitely check with upstream, if they could > drop the dependency, since it is there just for convenience. https://github.com/josh/ruby-coffee-script/issues/17
This version should address all the issues mentioned above. Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: skipped due to missing BuildRequires To build the minified browser version, uglify-js is required. It's already packaged and awaiting review. Note that Node.js Packaging Guidelines have been approved by FPC, and can be found in their new home among the rest of the official guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js
Ah, ok ... so I expect the uglify-js suffers the same issues as this package, since there is already rubygem-uglifier, which carries its copy of uglify.js :/ Going to comment there and question the node.js packaging guidelines.
This fixes coffee-script for the dependency generator issue Vit discovered in bug 894725 and also conditionalizes building the minified version so this builds without uglify-js for the time being. Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4922854
Could you please upload updated .spec file as well? Thank you.
(In reply to comment #14) > Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec > SRPM: > http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc17.src. > rpm Looks like you forgot to upload these. Once they are uploaded I will proceed with the review.
Sorry about that. Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc18.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4947208
You should remove the %clean section, and rm -rf %buildroot at the top of %install, and %defattr, and BuildRoot tag, as they are not needed. You can also remove the Group tags. It might be more conventional to call the docs subpackage -doc (instead of -docs) but in the guidelines that's given as a recommendation, not a requirement, so I'll leave it up to you. Complete review checklist is pasted below, there are only two blocking issues: * /usr/share/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/parser.js should not be executable * LICENSE needs to be moved from -docs to -common (maybe README as well), so that it is always installed Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 1433600 bytes in 107 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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. [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc19.src.rpm coffee-script-common-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm coffee-script-docs-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versa -> avers, verse, verso coffee-script.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib coffee-script.noarch: W: no-documentation coffee-script.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script/extras /usr/share/coffee-script/extras coffee-script.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script/lib /usr/share/coffee-script/lib coffee-script.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cake coffee-script.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary coffee coffee-script.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffee-script.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment coffee-script.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versa -> avers, verse, verso coffee-script-common.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffee-script-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j coffee-script-common.noarch: W: no-documentation coffee-script-common.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/parser.js coffee-script-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 16 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint coffee-script coffee-script-common coffee-script-docs coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versa -> avers, verse, verso coffee-script.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib coffee-script.noarch: W: no-documentation coffee-script.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script/extras /usr/share/coffee-script/extras coffee-script.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script/lib /usr/share/coffee-script/lib coffee-script.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cake coffee-script.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary coffee coffee-script-common.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffee-script-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j coffee-script-common.noarch: W: no-documentation coffee-script-common.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/parser.js coffee-script-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env coffee-script-common = 1.4.0-3.fc19 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.0 coffee-script-common-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): coffee-script-docs-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm: coffee-script = 1.4.0-3.fc19 npm(coffee-script) = 1.4.0 coffee-script-common-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm: coffee-script-common = 1.4.0-3.fc19 coffee-script-docs-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm: coffee-script-docs = 1.4.0-3.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/archive/158d37215a963c67e002b953041d7d499b6fcbeb/coffee-script-1.4.0-158d372.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 28ed3cd1639ee9aac8da5f32e0314f0a54cc5908d2ec2032eb5e1e0804b2b855 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 28ed3cd1639ee9aac8da5f32e0314f0a54cc5908d2ec2032eb5e1e0804b2b855 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 732216 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
(In reply to comment #18) > You should remove the %clean section, and rm -rf %buildroot at the top of > %install, and %defattr, and BuildRoot tag, as they are not needed. You can > also remove the Group tags. We may support EPEL 5 in the future, and my RPMs are rebuilt on EL5 in the wild, so I've made a habit of maintaining RHEL5 spec compatibility in all nodejs RPMs for now. This was also discussed with another reviewer in bug 891194. > It might be more conventional to call the docs subpackage -doc (instead of > -docs) but in the guidelines that's given as a recommendation, not a > requirement, so I'll leave it up to you. > > Complete review checklist is pasted below, there are only two blocking > issues: > * /usr/share/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/parser.js should not be > executable > * LICENSE needs to be moved from -docs to -common (maybe README as well), so > that it is always installed All fixed. Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4948144
(In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > You should remove the %clean section, and rm -rf %buildroot at the top of > > %install, and %defattr, and BuildRoot tag, as they are not needed. You can > > also remove the Group tags. > > We may support EPEL 5 in the future, and my RPMs are rebuilt on EL5 in the > wild, so I've made a habit of maintaining RHEL5 spec compatibility in all > nodejs RPMs for now. > > This was also discussed with another reviewer in bug 891194. No worries. > > It might be more conventional to call the docs subpackage -doc (instead of > > -docs) but in the guidelines that's given as a recommendation, not a > > requirement, so I'll leave it up to you. > > > > Complete review checklist is pasted below, there are only two blocking > > issues: > > * /usr/share/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/parser.js should not be > > executable > > * LICENSE needs to be moved from -docs to -common (maybe README as well), so > > that it is always installed > > All fixed. > > Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec > SRPM: > http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18.src. > rpm > Koji scratch build: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4948144 Nice work! Approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: coffee-script Short Description: A programming language that transcompiles to JavaScript Owners: patches Branches: f18 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18
coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
coffee-script-1.6.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coffee-script-1.6.3-1.el6
coffee-script-1.6.3-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.