https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366696

Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|needinfo?(code@musicinmybra |
                   |in.net)                     |



--- Comment #21 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> ---
I think we are almost there!

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== Issues =====

- Please replace all uses of %{__cmake_builddir} with %{_vpath_builddir}.

 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/CMake/#_available_macros

- Adding Unicode-3.0 license text for data derived from the UCD really ought to
  be suggested upstream. I opened
  https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/pull/1531; please add a link to that PR
  in the spec file.

 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/

- You have incorrectly marked SECURITY.md as %license. My suggestion would be
  not to package it at all, since it relates to interacting with upstream. If
  you really want to package it, use %doc.

- Consider packaging README.md as %doc in the -libs subpackage.

- Please use the "-p" or "--preserve-timestamps" option to "install" when
  installing man pages.

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_timestamps

  If you like, you can simplify this:

    install -m 755 -d %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1
    install -m 644 qjs.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/
    install -m 644 qjsc.1 %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1/

  as this:

    install -m 644 -p -D -t %{buildroot}%{_mandir}/man1 qjs.1 qjsc.1

  However, see the following:

- The man pages generated by help2man are of very low quality in this case.
  They have a false claim about info pages, which you can fix by passing the
  "--no-info" option. They also have documentation about various command-line
  options jumbled together and reflowed into one paragraph, which you probably
  cannot fix. Given that the generated man pages are a bit of a mess, if you
  are not prepared to maintain man pages by hand, then I think it would be
  better not to ship man pages at all.

- The tests seem to show some errors,

    + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -c tests.conf
    Result: 0/63 errors, 5 excluded
    + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -m -c test262.conf -a
    Result: 96/80958 errors, 4910 excluded, 5858 skipped
    + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -m -c test262.conf -c test262-fast.conf
-a
    Result: 92/79986 errors, 5450 excluded, 5804 skipped

  but this doesn’t fail the build, and the output doesn’t say which tests
  failed or how.

  Is it possible to at least get some information about failing tests?

- The uploaded spec file and SRPM differ; in the version in the SRPM, the first
  %cmake invocation is in %prep rather than %build. Please move it back to
  %build, or put it in a %conf section.

- You need to mark %{_docdir}/quickjs/ as documentation (%doc).

  The contents are just 10 relatively small examples for developers; if you
  like, you could simplify matters by moving these into the -devel package and
  dropping the -doc package.

- I don’t think it will make any difference here in practice, but you might
  consider writing

    make codegen QJSC="$(pwd)/%{__cmake_builddir}/qjsc"

  as

    %make_build codegen QJSC="$(pwd)/%{__cmake_builddir}/qjsc"

  https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_parallel_make

- If you don’t have concrete plans for an existing package that builds on i686
  to depend on this, consider adding

    ExcludeArch:  %{ix86}

  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval

- Please add a comment to the spec file mentioning the licenses involved in the
  test262 source archive, particularly that the “main” license is BSD-3-Clause,
  and that 'ECMA TR-104.pdf' is LicenseRef-ECMA-spec, which is allowed for
  content per
  https://gitlab.com/fedora/legal/fedora-license-data/-/work_items/711.
  Without these references, it’s much more difficult for someone who stumbles
  across the contents of the test262 source to quickly verify that due
  diligence has been done.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "Unicode License
     Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016)", "*No copyright* MIT
     License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Mozilla Public
     License 2.0". 56654 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/ben/fedora/review/2366696-quickjs-
     ng/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries
     with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible.
[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 12653 bytes in 10 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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:
[!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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.

     Please link https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/pull/1531.

[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 quickjs-
     ng-libs , quickjs-ng-devel , quickjs-ng-docs
[x]: Package functions as described.

     (Tests mostly pass.)

[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

     See https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/pull/1531.

[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.

     Please link https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/pull/1531 for
     Unicode-3.0 license file.

[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.

     https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=146544579

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Result: 96/80958 errors, 4910 excluded, 5858 skipped
     etc.


[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.

     Timestamps are lost when installing man pages.

[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]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: quickjs-ng-0.15.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-libs-0.15.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-devel-0.15.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-docs-0.15.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm
          quickjs-ng-0.15.1-1.fc45.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp9f_q0jz2')]
checks: 32, packages: 5

quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
quickjs-ng-docs.noarch: W: files-duplicate
/usr/share/licenses/quickjs-ng-docs/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/quickjs/LICENSE
 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 34 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.6 s 




Rpmlint (debuginfo)
-------------------
Checking: quickjs-ng-debuginfo-0.15.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
          quickjs-ng-libs-debuginfo-0.15.1-1.fc45.x86_64.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmppf6abur9')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 17 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.3 s 





Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.9.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 6

quickjs-ng-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
quickjs-ng-docs.noarch: W: files-duplicate
/usr/share/licenses/quickjs-ng-docs/LICENSE /usr/share/doc/quickjs/LICENSE
 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 47 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 1.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/archive/v0.15.1/quickjs-ng-0.15.1.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
c4e813951b7c46845096a948e978c620b11ab4cf5fd622ca09c727ec31f42623
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
c4e813951b7c46845096a948e978c620b11ab4cf5fd622ca09c727ec31f42623
https://github.com/tc39/test262/archive/d5e73fc8d2c663554fb72e2380a8c2bc1a318a33/test262-d5e73fc8d2c663554fb72e2380a8c2bc1a318a33.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
b5ab25d8eaa9a72f994a36a0f3f2779347148b213da995510199a0e0a7821fc1
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b5ab25d8eaa9a72f994a36a0f3f2779347148b213da995510199a0e0a7821fc1


Requires
--------
quickjs-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

quickjs-ng-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    glibc
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

quickjs-ng-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    cmake-filesystem(x86-64)
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Provides
--------
quickjs-ng:
    quickjs-ng
    quickjs-ng(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-libs:
    libqjs.so.0()(64bit)
    quickjs-ng-libs
    quickjs-ng-libs(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-devel:
    cmake(qjs)
    quickjs-ng-devel
    quickjs-ng-devel(x86-64)

quickjs-ng-docs:
    quickjs-ng-docs



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/ben/fedora/review/2366696-quickjs-ng/srpm/quickjs-ng.spec    
2026-06-05 06:40:24.800843392 +0100
+++ /home/ben/fedora/review/2366696-quickjs-ng/srpm-unpacked/quickjs-ng.spec   
2026-06-04 01:00:00.000000000 +0100
@@ -86,4 +86,5 @@

 %autopatch -p1
+%cmake


@@ -91,5 +92,4 @@
 # QuickJS comes with an interpreter and a bytecode compiler. The interpreter
embeds some bytecode.
 # First, build the compiler and regenerate the bytecode.
-%cmake
 %cmake_build --target qjsc
 make codegen QJSC="$(pwd)/%{__cmake_builddir}/qjsc"


Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2366696
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, Ocaml, Python, Java, SugarActivity, Perl, PHP, R,
fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366696

Report this comment as SPAM: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202366696%23c21

-- 
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new

Reply via email to