[Bug 732216] New: Review Request: coffeescript - A programming language that transcompiles to JavaScript
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: coffeescript - A programming language that transcompiles to JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
Summary: Review Request: coffeescript - A programming language that transcompiles to JavaScript Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: unspecified Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tchollingsworth@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~tchol/fedora/coffeescript.spec SRPM URL: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~tchol/fedora/coffeescript-1.1.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: CoffeeScript is a little language that compiles into JavaScript. Underneath all of those embarrassing braces and semicolons, JavaScript has always had a gorgeous object model at its heart. CoffeeScript is an attempt to expose the good parts of JavaScript in a simple way.
The golden rule of CoffeeScript is: "It's just JavaScript". The code compiles one-to-one into the equivalent JS, and there is no interpretation at runtime. You can use any existing JavaScript library seamlessly (and vice-versa). The compiled output is readable and pretty-printed, passes through JavaScript Lint without warnings, will work in every JavaScript implementation, and tends to run as fast or faster than the equivalent handwritten JavaScript.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Depends on| |634911
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com 2011-08-20 19:10:54 EDT --- $ rpmlint SPECS/coffeescript.spec SPECS/coffeescript.spec:64: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/../coffee-script SPECS/coffeescript.spec:65: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/../lib/nodejs/coffee-script SPECS/coffeescript.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jashkenas-coffee-script-1.1.2-0-g1a652a9.tar.gz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/coffeescript-1.1.2-1.fc15.noarch.rpm coffeescript.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffeescript.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment coffeescript.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versa -> avers, verse, verso coffeescript.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib coffeescript.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cake coffeescript.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary coffee 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
Bug 732216 depends on bug 634911, which changed state.
Bug 634911 Summary: Review Request: nodejs - Evented I/O for v8 JavaScript https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634911
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |DUPLICATE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on|634911 |732552(nodejs)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
Bug 732216 depends on bug 732552, which changed state.
Bug 732552 Summary: Review Request: nodejs - Evented I/O for V8 JavaScript https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732552
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |WONTFIX Status|NEW |CLOSED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Resolution| |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2011-10-24 19:00:13
--- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com 2011-10-24 19:00:13 EDT --- Closing all Node.js-related reviews per bug 732552.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
Dan Callaghan dcallagh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dcallagh@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Dan Callaghan dcallagh@redhat.com --- TC, would you consider reviving this review request given that node is now going to land in Fedora?
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Keywords| |Reopened
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
--- Comment #4 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- Here you go. :-)
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-1.fc17.src.... Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4869840
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |coffeescript - A |coffee-script - A |programming language that |programming language that |transcompiles to JavaScript |transcompiles to JavaScript
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
Dan Callaghan dcallagh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |891461 Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dcallagh@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Dan Callaghan dcallagh@redhat.com --- Great, thanks!
I can take this review. At first glance everything looks good. I will brush up on Node packaging guidelines tomorrow and then do a proper review.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #6 from Dan Callaghan dcallagh@redhat.com --- One question... could you consider shipping the "browser" version of coffee-script.js (with all modules included) as well? I think you can just add:
MINIFY=false bin/cake build:browser
in %build and then install extras/coffee-script.js to somewhere suitable. It would really help with my efforts to package PhantomJS.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #7 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #5)
Great, thanks!
I can take this review. At first glance everything looks good. I will brush up on Node packaging guidelines tomorrow and then do a proper review.
There's a draft here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts:Node.js
I wrote them, so I'd hope this package is compliant. ;-)
Please note that FESCo has asked that I hold off on pushing stable any Node.js packages until FPC has approved those guidelines. Toshio Kuratomi of the FPC is already okay with them, so we hope to have that done soon.
In the meantime, we can still get this into Rawhide and F18 updates-testing.
(In reply to comment #6)
One question... could you consider shipping the "browser" version of coffee-script.js (with all modules included) as well?
Sure. I'll even subpackage it so it won't drag in Node unnecessarily.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #8 from VÃt Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- Guys, could you please drop the runtime dependency on Node.js? It seems [1] that I'll be forced to depend on coffee-script package in rubygem-coffee-script-source package. I would really hate to have Node.js on my system just because of it. Thank you for considering.
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2013-January/008866.html
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #9 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- I can definitely provide a coffee-script-common package that provides what rubygem-coffee-script needs without depending on node. The main coffee-script package should ship /usr/bin/coffee and /usr/bin/cake and thus will need to still to depend on node, though.
Does rubygem-coffee-script-source really need to exist? Can't rubygem-coffee-source just be told to look in /usr/share/coffee-script (yeah it's lib now, but this is a case where it should definitely go to share)?
If it's really necessary, I think it should be built from this SRPM. It'll be easier to maintain that way, since it will always bumps version along with the rest of coffee-script.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #10 from VÃt Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #9)
I can definitely provide a coffee-script-common package that provides what rubygem-coffee-script needs without depending on node.
That works for me, if that will be standardized.
Does rubygem-coffee-script-source really need to exist? Can't rubygem-coffee-source just be told to look in /usr/share/coffee-script (yeah it's lib now, but this is a case where it should definitely go to share)?
I am afraid that rubygem-coffee-script and rubygem-coffee-script-source, both has to stay in Fedora. The problem is that coffee-script depends on coffee-script-source and this dependency will be reflected in Gemfile used by Bundler. If I attempt to drop the dependency, we will differ from other platforms.
On the other hand, I should definitely check with upstream, if they could drop the dependency, since it is there just for convenience.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #11 from VÃt Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #10)
On the other hand, I should definitely check with upstream, if they could drop the dependency, since it is there just for convenience.
https://github.com/josh/ruby-coffee-script/issues/17
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |894725
--- Comment #12 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- This version should address all the issues mentioned above.
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-2.fc17.src.... Koji scratch build: skipped due to missing BuildRequires
To build the minified browser version, uglify-js is required. It's already packaged and awaiting review.
Note that Node.js Packaging Guidelines have been approved by FPC, and can be found in their new home among the rest of the official guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #13 from VÃt Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- Ah, ok ... so I expect the uglify-js suffers the same issues as this package, since there is already rubygem-uglifier, which carries its copy of uglify.js :/ Going to comment there and question the node.js packaging guidelines.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #14 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- This fixes coffee-script for the dependency generator issue Vit discovered in bug 894725 and also conditionalizes building the minified version so this builds without uglify-js for the time being.
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc17.src.... Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4922854
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #15 from VÃt Ondruch vondruch@redhat.com --- Could you please upload updated .spec file as well? Thank you.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #16 from Dan Callaghan dcallagh@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #14)
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc17.src. rpm
Looks like you forgot to upload these. Once they are uploaded I will proceed with the review.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #17 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- Sorry about that.
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc18.src.... Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4947208
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #18 from Dan Callaghan dcallagh@redhat.com --- You should remove the %clean section, and rm -rf %buildroot at the top of %install, and %defattr, and BuildRoot tag, as they are not needed. You can also remove the Group tags.
It might be more conventional to call the docs subpackage -doc (instead of -docs) but in the guidelines that's given as a recommendation, not a requirement, so I'll leave it up to you.
Complete review checklist is pasted below, there are only two blocking issues: * /usr/share/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/parser.js should not be executable * LICENSE needs to be moved from -docs to -common (maybe README as well), so that it is always installed
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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShor... [!]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 1433600 bytes in 107 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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 does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: 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. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [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. [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc19.src.rpm coffee-script-common-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm coffee-script-docs-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versa -> avers, verse, verso coffee-script.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib coffee-script.noarch: W: no-documentation coffee-script.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script/extras /usr/share/coffee-script/extras coffee-script.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script/lib /usr/share/coffee-script/lib coffee-script.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cake coffee-script.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary coffee coffee-script.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffee-script.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment coffee-script.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versa -> avers, verse, verso coffee-script-common.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffee-script-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j coffee-script-common.noarch: W: no-documentation coffee-script-common.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/parser.js coffee-script-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 16 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint coffee-script coffee-script-common coffee-script-docs coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment coffee-script.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versa -> avers, verse, verso coffee-script.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib coffee-script.noarch: W: no-documentation coffee-script.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script/extras /usr/share/coffee-script/extras coffee-script.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script/lib /usr/share/coffee-script/lib coffee-script.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cake coffee-script.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary coffee coffee-script-common.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental coffee-script-common.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j coffee-script-common.noarch: W: no-documentation coffee-script-common.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/parser.js coffee-script-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) transcompiles -> trans compiles, trans-compiles, transcontinental 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/env coffee-script-common = 1.4.0-3.fc19 nodejs(engine) >= 0.4.0
coffee-script-common-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
coffee-script-docs-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- coffee-script-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm:
coffee-script = 1.4.0-3.fc19 npm(coffee-script) = 1.4.0
coffee-script-common-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm:
coffee-script-common = 1.4.0-3.fc19
coffee-script-docs-1.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm:
coffee-script-docs = 1.4.0-3.fc19
MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/archive/158d37215a963c67e002b9530... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 28ed3cd1639ee9aac8da5f32e0314f0a54cc5908d2ec2032eb5e1e0804b2b855 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 28ed3cd1639ee9aac8da5f32e0314f0a54cc5908d2ec2032eb5e1e0804b2b855
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 732216 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #19 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #18)
You should remove the %clean section, and rm -rf %buildroot at the top of %install, and %defattr, and BuildRoot tag, as they are not needed. You can also remove the Group tags.
We may support EPEL 5 in the future, and my RPMs are rebuilt on EL5 in the wild, so I've made a habit of maintaining RHEL5 spec compatibility in all nodejs RPMs for now.
This was also discussed with another reviewer in bug 891194.
It might be more conventional to call the docs subpackage -doc (instead of -docs) but in the guidelines that's given as a recommendation, not a requirement, so I'll leave it up to you.
Complete review checklist is pasted below, there are only two blocking issues:
- /usr/share/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/parser.js should not be
executable
- LICENSE needs to be moved from -docs to -common (maybe README as well), so
that it is always installed
All fixed.
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18.src.... Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4948144
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
Dan Callaghan dcallagh@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #20 from Dan Callaghan dcallagh@redhat.com --- (In reply to comment #19)
(In reply to comment #18)
You should remove the %clean section, and rm -rf %buildroot at the top of %install, and %defattr, and BuildRoot tag, as they are not needed. You can also remove the Group tags.
We may support EPEL 5 in the future, and my RPMs are rebuilt on EL5 in the wild, so I've made a habit of maintaining RHEL5 spec compatibility in all nodejs RPMs for now.
This was also discussed with another reviewer in bug 891194.
No worries.
It might be more conventional to call the docs subpackage -doc (instead of -docs) but in the guidelines that's given as a recommendation, not a requirement, so I'll leave it up to you.
Complete review checklist is pasted below, there are only two blocking issues:
- /usr/share/coffee-script/lib/coffee-script/parser.js should not be
executable
- LICENSE needs to be moved from -docs to -common (maybe README as well), so
that it is always installed
All fixed.
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node_modules/coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18.src. rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4948144
Nice work! Approved.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #21 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: coffee-script Short Description: A programming language that transcompiles to JavaScript Owners: patches Branches: f18 el6 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #22 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
Bug 732216 depends on bug 894725, which changed state.
Bug 894725 Summary: Review Request: uglify-js - JavaScript parser, mangler/compressor and beautifier toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894725
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2011-10-24 19:00:13 |2013-04-05 19:04:55
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- coffee-script-1.4.0-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- coffee-script-1.6.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/coffee-script-1.6.3-1.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=732216
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |coffee-script-1.6.3-1.el6
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- coffee-script-1.6.3-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla