[Bug 896087] Review Request: prototype - JavaScript framework

Wed Jul 3 16:36:18 UTC 2013

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=896087

--- Comment #4 from Adrien Devresse <adev88 at gmail.com> ---
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.

    -> MIT License

[-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
    -> Pure JS

[X]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[X]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
    -> Package designed to be EPEL 5 compliant

[X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
    -> Pure MIT
[X]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
    -> Package designed to be EPEL 5 compliant

[-]: 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.

    -> Done for httpd

[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[X]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in prototype-
     httpd

    -> isa tag not required : noarch

[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.

    -> MIT

[X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
    -> all sub pkg depends on the main one.

[X]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[X]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

    -> cf comment

[-]: 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.
    -> Only httpd, justified for configuration files

[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.

    -> see Builds section    

[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[-]: 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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:
[!]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
    -> Package designed to be EPEL 5 compliant

[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: %clean present but not required

    -> Package designed to be EPEL 5 compliant

[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.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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: prototype-1.7.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm
          prototype-httpd-1.7.1.0-1.el6.noarch.rpm
prototype-httpd.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint prototype-httpd prototype
prototype-httpd.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
prototype-httpd.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Issues :
    No blocking issue

Comments :

buildroot clean/install:
        -> EPEL 5 compatible package : normal

%check is present and all tests pass.
        -> No unit tests, please include them if available in tarball in
future.

No Documentation embeded 
        -> Impossible to build from tarball for now, if possible in future
please do in order to add documentation and LICENSE

License Upstream 
        -> Same comment than previous one, clearly not critical.

Builds :

    Rawhide :

    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5569680

    EL 5:

    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5569814

    EL 6:

    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5569827

    F 19:

    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5569829

    F 18:

    http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5569837

Package Accepted.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CGbbIC9Uyw&a=cc_unsubscribe