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

Sat Aug 22 20:30:08 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=455622

--- Comment #7 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan at hubbitus.info>  2009-08-22 16:30:05 EDT ---
MUST items:

[+/-] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
$ rpmlint *
scriptaculous-js-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation

Consider put into tests sub-package files MIT-LICENSE README.rdoc.

[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet 
the Licensing Guidelines.
[-] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
Yes. I only doubt about one file sound.js, it contain comment string: "// Based
on code created by Jules Gravinese (http://www.webveteran.com/)"
I have not fount on this page any license.

So, I fire FE-legal here, please try clarify this issue, contact with author or
leave for Spot...

[+] 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.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.

$ md5sum *
10aa518e3b44f5a2a55f2bc8caadcd62  scriptaculous-js-1.8.2_RPM.tar.bz2
10aa518e3b44f5a2a55f2bc8caadcd62  scriptaculous-js-1.8.2.tar.bz2

[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1626056

[+] 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.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
Only note: You may also use %{name}-%{version} in Source0 tag, but it on you
choose.

[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc sub-package. (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).
[+] 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]
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time.
[+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1626056
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
There nothing test I think.

Some additional things:
1) It is optional. You name subpackage as scriptaculous-js-tests, but actually
no tests there! It contain only html-files with functionality demo. Please
consider rerename it into something like scriptaculous-js-demo or
scriptaculous-js-examples
2) You Requiere httpd. Why??? It is contain only static jasascript files, so I
eleav it may functional on any web-server. So you must require "webserver"
(this is meta provides)
3) You bundle prototypejs library here (http://prototypejs.org/) and even this
is not standard binary library, It is not permited anyway and must be packaged
separately.
For things see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/No_Bundled_Libraries#For_the_Review_Guidelines
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software
(this one is about Java packaging, but speak also about "Other bundled
software" so I think it applicable)

-- 
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.