[Bug 455622] Review Request: scriptaculous-js - JavaScript libraries for web user interfaces

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=455622


Satya Komaragiri <skomarag at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |skomarag at redhat.com




--- Comment #3 from Satya Komaragiri <skomarag at redhat.com>  2009-08-21 08:14:57 EDT ---
Unofficial review

rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint scriptaculous-js-1.8.1-1.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint ../SPECS/scriptaculous-js.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


$ rpmlint scriptaculous-js-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint scriptaculous-js-tests-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
scriptaculous-js-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Warning can be ignored 
-------

Builds successfully on Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1619781

-------

$ rpm -i scriptaculous-js-1.8.1-1.src.rpm 
warning: user dmalcolm does not exist - using root
warning: group dmalcolm does not exist - using root
warning: user dmalcolm does not exist - using root
warning: group dmalcolm does not exist - using root
warning: user dmalcolm does not exist - using root
warning: group dmalcolm does not exist - using root

$ du -sh scriptaculous-js-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 
92K scriptaculous-js-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm
$ du -sh scriptaculous-js-tests-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 
84K scriptaculous-js-tests-1.8.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm

--------

list:

[x] Rpmlink output pasted above.

[x] Naming guidelines are followed.

[x] Spec file from spec link matches spec in srpm.

[x] License checked.

[x] The package meets the packaging guidelines.

[x] The license file is included in %doc.

[x] The spec file is written in American English.

[x] The spec file for the package is legible. 

[x] The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source.

[x] The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.

[x] A package owns all directories that it creates. 

[x] No file is listed more than once in the spec file's %files listings. 

[x] Permissions on files are set properly.

[x] Has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.

[x] Consistently uses macros.

[x] Package contains only permissible content.

[x] Files listed in %doc do not affect the runtime of the application.

[x] Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 

[x] At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT.

[x] All file names in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. 

(The point from the MUST list of review guidelines that are left out here do
not apply in this case.) 

---------

[x] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

[x] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures. 

[x] Subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.


(The point from the SHOULD list of review guidelines that are left out here do
not apply in this case.)

--------

x: OKay

-- 
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.