https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770294
Bug ID: 1770294 Summary: Review Request: js - JavaScript interpreter and libraries Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: tcallawa@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/js.spec SRPM URL: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/js-1.8.5-35.fc30.src.rpm Description: Fedora Account System Username: spot Koji Rawhide Scratch Build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38842751
Note: This package was previously in Fedora but was orphaned & retired after Fedora 30. I need it alive for freewrl, so I applied the fix to resolve the FTBFS from Sergey Bostandzhyan.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770294
--- Comment #1 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- Description was accidentally omitted.
Description: JavaScript is the Netscape-developed object scripting language used in millions of web pages and server applications worldwide. Netscape's JavaScript is a super-set of the ECMA-262 Edition 3 (ECMAScript) standard scripting language, with only mild differences from the published standard.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770294
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - URL is 404
URL: http://www.mozilla.org/js/
Use https://developer.mozilla.org/En/SpiderMonkey/1.8.5 ?
- Missing isa:
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release}
- Would be nice to have a short description or link to a bug for each patch to keep track. Won't bother you about it if you don't feel doing it.
- make -C src install DESTDIR=%{buildroot} → %make_install -C src
- Not needed anymore unless EPEL:
%ldconfig_scriptlets
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/js See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
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]: 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 %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Mozilla Public License (v1.1) GNU General Public License (v2 or later) or GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "Mozilla Public License (v1.1)", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License (v1.1)", "BSD (unspecified)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License (v1.1) GNU General Public License (v2 or later) or GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "NTP License (legal disclaimer)", "Expat License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1)". 2102 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/js/review-js/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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
===== 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in js-devel [?]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: js-1.8.5-35.fc32.x86_64.rpm js-devel-1.8.5-35.fc32.x86_64.rpm js-debuginfo-1.8.5-35.fc32.x86_64.rpm js-debugsource-1.8.5-35.fc32.x86_64.rpm js-1.8.5-35.fc32.src.rpm js.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.mozilla.org/js/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found js.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary js js-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.mozilla.org/js/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found js-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation js-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jscpucfg js-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.mozilla.org/js/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found js-debugsource.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.mozilla.org/js/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found js.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.mozilla.org/js/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770294
--- Comment #3 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- All suggested fixes applied.
New SRPM: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/js-1.8.5-36.fc31.src.rpm New SPEC: https://spot.fedorapeople.org/js.spec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770294
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com ---
- You shouldn't have that second line:
%make_install -C src make -C src install DESTDIR=%{buildroot}
Only the first is needed.
- I don't expect this package to be updated but in any case, for future reference, we now forbid to glob the major soname version to avoid unannounced soname bump, be more specific instead:
%{_libdir}/*.so.1*
Package is approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770294
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |pbrobinson@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com ---
Note: This package was previously in Fedora but was orphaned & retired after Fedora 30. I need it alive for freewrl, so I applied the fix to resolve the FTBFS from Sergey Bostandzhyan.
Is there any reason it can't use a newer version, the 1.8.5 js release is ridiculously out of date and will have no end of CVEs. The newer releases of js as packaged as mozjs<version> with the latest being mozjs68
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770294
--- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com --- (In reply to Peter Robinson from comment #5)
Note: This package was previously in Fedora but was orphaned & retired after Fedora 30. I need it alive for freewrl, so I applied the fix to resolve the FTBFS from Sergey Bostandzhyan.
Is there any reason it can't use a newer version, the 1.8.5 js release is ridiculously out of date and will have no end of CVEs. The newer releases of js as packaged as mozjs<version> with the latest being mozjs68
Yes, mozjs dropped the C API after 1.8.5, it only has C++ support now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770294
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-07-17 09:20:15
--- Comment #7 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Package has been retired
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com