https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369534
Bug ID: 1369534 Summary: Review Request: libsass - C/C++ port of the Sass CSS precompiler Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: aurelien@bompard.org QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sass/libsass.spec SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sass/libsass-3.3.6-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Libsass is a C/C++ port of the Sass CSS precompiler. The original version was written in Ruby, but this version is meant for efficiency and portability.
This library strives to be light, simple, and easy to build and integrate with a variety of platforms and languages.
Libsass is just a library, but if you want to RUN libsass, install the sassc package.
Fedora Account System Username: abompard
Note: I will submit the sassc package when this one is in, you can use it for testing here: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sass/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369534
Aurelien Bompard aurelien@bompard.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1369535
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369535 [Bug 1369535] Review Request: sassc - Wrapper around libsass to compile CSS stylesheet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369534
Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |randy@electronsweatshop.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |randy@electronsweatshop.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369534
Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aurelien@bompard.org Flags| |needinfo?(aurelien@bompard. | |org)
--- Comment #1 from Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com --- Bonjour Aurelien!
This looks great, but I have one thing for you to change: can you use the %license macro on the LICENSE file instead of including it with the %doc macro? Once you do that, this'll be good to go!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369534
Aurelien Bompard aurelien@bompard.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(aurelien@bompard. | |org) |
--- Comment #2 from Aurelien Bompard aurelien@bompard.org --- Done! Files updated, thanks Randy :-)
Spec URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sass/libsass.spec SRPM URL: https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/reviews/sass/libsass-3.3.6-1.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369534
Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(aurelien@bompard. | |org)
--- Comment #3 from Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com --- Hey Aurelien!
The -devel subpackage still has the LICENSE in the %doc macro. Can you fix that one too? Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369534
Aurelien Bompard aurelien@bompard.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(aurelien@bompard. | |org) |
--- Comment #4 from Aurelien Bompard aurelien@bompard.org --- Oops, fixed, thanks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369534
Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Randy Barlow randy@electronsweatshop.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSL", "Unknown or generated". 170 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/rbarlow/reviews/1369534-libsass/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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: [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in libsass- debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: libsass-3.3.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libsass-devel-3.3.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libsass-debuginfo-3.3.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm libsass-3.3.6-1.fc26.src.rpm libsass.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) precompiler -> recompile, compiler libsass.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US precompiler -> recompile, compiler libsass.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sassc -> sass, sassy, sass c libsass.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsass.so.0.0.9 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 libsass-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libsass-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation libsass.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) precompiler -> recompile, compiler libsass.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US precompiler -> recompile, compiler libsass.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sassc -> sass, sassy, sass c 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: libsass-debuginfo-3.3.6-1.fc26.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- libsass.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) precompiler -> recompile, compiler libsass.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US precompiler -> recompile, compiler libsass.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sassc -> sass, sassy, sass c libsass.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/libsass.so.0.0.9 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 libsass-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib libsass-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Requires -------- libsass (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.1)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3.5)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
libsass-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libsass-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libsass(x86-64) libsass.so.0()(64bit)
Provides -------- libsass: libsass libsass(x86-64) libsass.so.0()(64bit)
libsass-debuginfo: libsass-debuginfo libsass-debuginfo(x86-64)
libsass-devel: libsass-devel libsass-devel(x86-64) pkgconfig(libsass)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sass/libsass/archive/3.3.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4b004b0fcef55420dc916216b1961e0d86925e6bf4a6be37d0b6db42f7f25da5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4b004b0fcef55420dc916216b1961e0d86925e6bf4a6be37d0b6db42f7f25da5
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1369534 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369534
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/libsass
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369534
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsass-3.3.6-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-57a1f8f677
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369534
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-10-08 22:53:17
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- libsass-3.3.6-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla