Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 997678
Review Request: web-assets - A simple framework for bits pushed to browsers
Last modified: 2014-05-20 13:06:09 EDT
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/web-assets/web-assets.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/web-assets/web-assets-4-1.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5820525 FAS: patches Description: A simple framework for bits pushed to browsers.
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. [X]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in web-assets- filesystem , web-assets-devel [X]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [X]: 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. [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. --- absent in -filesystem, but as noted in comments, there's no content here [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. [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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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 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: [-]: 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. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: web-assets-filesystem-4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm web-assets-devel-4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm web-assets-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation web-assets-filesystem.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/web-assets/fonts ../fonts web-assets-devel.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint web-assets-filesystem web-assets-devel web-assets-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation web-assets-filesystem.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/web-assets/fonts ../fonts web-assets-devel.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- web-assets-filesystem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): web-assets-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): web-assets-filesystem Provides -------- web-assets-filesystem: web-assets-filesystem web-assets-devel: web-assets-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64 I see no problems here, APPROVED. Personally, I'd appreciate seeing some packaged documentation to generally outline the purpose of web-assets and references to packaging guidelines or other resources explaining the use of these directories. Not a blocker, just nice to have.
I think: Requires: web-assets-filesystem should be Requires: web-assets-filesystem%{?isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Thanks for the quick review! (In reply to Pete Travis from comment #1) > Personally, I'd appreciate seeing some packaged documentation to generally > outline the purpose of web-assets and references to packaging guidelines or > other resources explaining the use of these directories. Not a blocker, just > nice to have. I added a brief README for now. (In reply to Igor Gnatenko from comment #2) > I think: > Requires: web-assets-filesystem > should be > Requires: web-assets-filesystem%{?isa} = %{version}-%{release} I added %{version}-%{release}, but not %{?_isa} because that's wrong for noarch packages. (It'll just add whatever arch the noarch package happens to be building on at the time.) -- Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/web-assets/web-assets.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/web-assets/web-assets-4-2.fc20.src.rpm * Sat Aug 24 2013 T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@gmail.com> - 4-2 - tighten dependency on filesystem from other packages - add brief README to -devel
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: web-assets Short Description: A simple framework for bits pushed to browsers Owners: patches Branches: f20 f19 f18 el6 el5 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
web-assets-4-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/web-assets-4-2.fc19
web-assets-4-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/web-assets-4-2.el6
web-assets-4-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/web-assets-4-2.fc18
web-assets-4-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/web-assets-4-3.fc18
web-assets-4-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/web-assets-4-3.el6
web-assets-4-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/web-assets-4-3.el5
web-assets-4-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
web-assets-4-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
web-assets-4-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
web-assets-5-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/web-assets-5-2.el6
web-assets-5-2.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/web-assets-5-2.el5
web-assets-5-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
web-assets-5-2.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.