Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//impressjs.spec SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//impressjs-0.5.3-120130412gitgedff5a0.fc18.src.rpm Description: It's a presentation framework based on the power of CSS3 transforms and transitions in modern browsers and inspired by the idea behind prezi.com.
This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5246952
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. (pending upstream bug https://github.com/bartaz/impress.js/issues/279) - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. (see item below - you'll need a Requires on httpd for this). - Requires correct, justified where necessary. (What the MochiKit package does is provide an httpd config file that has Alias /MochiKit /usr/share/MochiKit in it. If you do something like this, your patch can use /impressjs instead of hardcoding the file:/// url.) - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. (As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment throw in a quick comment about why the patch exists.) - The Release tag seems wrong. At least nuke the "1" before it. ===== MUST items ===== 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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [!]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: impressjs-0.5.3-120130412gitgedff5a0.fc20.noarch.rpm impressjs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javascript -> JavaScript, Java script, Java-script impressjs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prezi -> prize, prezzie impressjs.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.5.3-1gitgedff5a0 ['0.5.3-120130412gitgedff5a0.fc20', '0.5.3-120130412gitgedff5a0'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint impressjs impressjs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javascript -> JavaScript, Java script, Java-script impressjs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prezi -> prize, prezzie impressjs.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.5.3-1gitgedff5a0 ['0.5.3-120130412gitgedff5a0.fc20', '0.5.3-120130412gitgedff5a0'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- impressjs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- impressjs: impressjs MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/bartaz/impress.js/tarball/0.5.3/bartaz-impress.js-0.5.3-0-gedff5a0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 197196abb31c161b0d0032bb819be9173e76f002780d18c6e609054f809d286a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 197196abb31c161b0d0032bb819be9173e76f002780d18c6e609054f809d286a Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 951711 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
(In reply to comment #2) > - License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > (pending upstream bug https://github.com/bartaz/impress.js/issues/279) Yeah.. still waiting. > - Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > (see item below - you'll need a Requires on httpd for this) > > - Requires correct, justified where necessary. > (What the MochiKit package does is provide an httpd config file that has > Alias /MochiKit /usr/share/MochiKit > in it. If you do something like this, your patch can use /impressjs > instead > of hardcoding the file:/// url.) I see. What if a user wanted to install the impressjs resource but didn't want to have the demo served from their machine with httpd? That is the particular use case I packaged this for. Specifically for the python 'hovercraft' tool which bundles impress.js. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=952355 > - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. > (As per > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment > throw in a quick comment about why the patch exists.) Cool, can do. > - The Release tag seems wrong. At least nuke the "1" before it. Cool. Will nuke.
New release with: - Added comment for the patch. - Nuked the '1' before the release tag. Also, I rewrote the old changelog to have the correct release tag. Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs-0.5.3-20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18.src.rpm
I marked this ticket as blocking FE-Legal. Upstream hasn't responded to our license question at https://github.com/bartaz/impress.js/issues/279 Upstream states in their README that the project is dual licensed MIT and GPL but they do not specify a version for the GPL. Is there anyway we can move forward with this package review without continuing to block on upstream's response?
If they do not specify a version, it is safe to treat it as GPL+. Mark it that way and move on. Lifting FE-Legal.
Thanks Tom. Upstream just responded to the ticket indicating this is MIT or GPLv2+. Spec file updated: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs-0.5.3-20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18.src.rpm
One remaining thing: I was wrong in my comment above - rather than nuking the '1', it just needed a period added after it. Sorry about that. impressjs-0.5.3-20130412gitgedff5a0.fc20.noarch.rpm becomes impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc20.noarch.rpm If you fix that, this is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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]: 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. [-]: 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 complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: impressjs-0.5.3-20130412gitgedff5a0.fc20.noarch.rpm impressjs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javascript -> JavaScript, Java script, Java-script impressjs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prezi -> prize, prezzie 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint impressjs impressjs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javascript -> JavaScript, Java script, Java-script impressjs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US prezi -> prize, prezzie impressjs.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.5.3-1gitgedff5a0 ['0.5.3-120130412gitgedff5a0.fc20', '0.5.3-120130412gitgedff5a0'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- impressjs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- impressjs: impressjs Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bartaz/impress.js/tarball/0.5.3/bartaz-impress.js-0.5.3-0-gedff5a0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 197196abb31c161b0d0032bb819be9173e76f002780d18c6e609054f809d286a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 197196abb31c161b0d0032bb819be9173e76f002780d18c6e609054f809d286a Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 951711
One more thing - it might be more clean to do: install -D -m 0644 js/impress.js %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/impressjs/impress.js rather than %{__mkdir_p} %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/impressjs cp js/impress.js %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/impressjs/impress.js but this is nonblocking, and still APPROVED. :)
Updated with your comments! Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18.src.rpm
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: impressjs Short Description: Javascript presentation framework Owners: ralph Branches: f19 f18 f17 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc19
impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18
impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc17
impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.el6
impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
impressjs-0.5.3-1.20130412gitgedff5a0.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
All stable.