[Bug 508525] Review Request: gjs - Javascript Bindings for GNOME

Fri Aug 7 15:36:20 UTC 2009

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=508525

--- Comment #12 from Owen Taylor <otaylor at redhat.com>  2009-08-07 11:36:18 EDT ---
xulrunner-devel-unstable dependency isn't needed - at least on F11, jsapi.h and
mozilla-js.pc are part of the main xulrunner-devel.

-devel subpackage requirement on gtk-doc doesn't seem needed. (gtk-doc is a
tool for generating documentation from sources.)

Suggest adding a '%check' section with 'make check'

%description
Gjs is a Javascript binding for GNOME. It's mainly based on Spidermonkey 
javascript engine and the GObject introspection framework. 

Suggest slight edit:

 Gjs allows using GNOME libraries from Javascript. It's based on the
Spidermonkey Javascript engine from Mozilla and the GObject introspection
framework. 

One missing BuildRequires noted below, otherwise looks good.(BuildRequires
checked by inspection.)

#  MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. 
OK:
 $ rpmlint ../SRPMS/gjs-0.3-1.fc11.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint ../RPMS/i586/gjs-0.3-1.fc11.i586.rpm 
gjs.i586: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libgjs-dbus.so.0.0.0 exit at GLIBC_2.0
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

The 1 warning is ignorable. [Implements standard dbus
exit-on-disconnect-from-session-bus behavior to bring down session with the
session bus]

# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
OK
# MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
OK
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
OK
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
OK
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
NA
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
X

Needs BuildRequires: dbus-glib-devel

# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
NA
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
OK
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
NA
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [13]
OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [14]
OK
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
OK
# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
OK
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present. [18]
OK
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
OK
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
NA
# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [21]
OK
# MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package. [19]
OK
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [22]
OK
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
OK
# MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. 
NA
# MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. 
OK
# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25]
OK
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26]
OK

* SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [27]

* SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [28]
NA
* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [29]
Not tested
* SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. [30]
Not tested
* SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
OK
$ gjs-console 
gjs> const Gtk = imports.gi.Gtk
gjs> Gtk.init(None, None)
gjs> w.show()
gjs> Gtk.main()

Looks good.

* SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [31]
OK
* SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency. [22]
NA
* SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. 
OK
* SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself. [32] 
NA

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.