https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2366696
Ben Beasley <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #29 from Ben Beasley <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== In general, the issues and suggestions from previous rounds of review have been addressed, and I didn’t discover any new issues. I think this can be approved now. It would be nice to improve handling of the test suite, as noted below. Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== - The tests seem to show some errors, + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -c tests.conf Result: 0/89 errors, 9 excluded + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -m -c test262.conf -a Result: 52/82220 errors, 4802 excluded, 5736 skipped + ./redhat-linux-build/run-test262 -m -c test262.conf -c test262-fast.conf -a Result: 52/81192 errors, 5370 excluded, 5682 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? This doesn’t need to block approval, but it’s an area that could perhaps be improved. ===== 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". 57124 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 5458 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: 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 Fully versioned dependencies are correctly on the -libs subpackage. [x]: Package functions as described. (the vast majority of tests pass) [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. [-]: 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=148834220 [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Some tests fail, but they don’t fail the build. Is it possible to get more information about these failing tests, and perhaps explicitly skip them and fail the build when not all tests pass? [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: quickjs-ng-0.16.1-1.fc45.aarch64.rpm quickjs-ng-libs-0.16.1-1.fc45.aarch64.rpm quickjs-ng-devel-0.16.1-1.fc45.aarch64.rpm quickjs-ng-doc-0.16.1-1.fc45.noarch.rpm quickjs-ng-0.16.1-1.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/tmpqfxtfiq9')] checks: 32, packages: 5 quickjs-ng-devel.aarch64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 36 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.8 s Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: quickjs-ng-debuginfo-0.16.1-1.fc45.aarch64.rpm quickjs-ng-libs-debuginfo-0.16.1-1.fc45.aarch64.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/tmppbyge3ml')] checks: 32, packages: 2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 16 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.9.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/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.aarch64: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 48 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/quickjs-ng/quickjs/archive/v0.16.1/quickjs-ng-0.16.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4b3c11f37dab2c58bdeccbaeb23b923fa4a9798a45e50be6af55f3e75b616ea0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4b3c11f37dab2c58bdeccbaeb23b923fa4a9798a45e50be6af55f3e75b616ea0 https://github.com/tc39/test262/archive/5ef1e5723be95296f36afb0386676fed0205869c/test262-5ef1e5723be95296f36afb0386676fed0205869c.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d67ff29d7bcee3493f38b3ef54db068ea5ad6d5a67b67b3f505dfee581dd3879 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d67ff29d7bcee3493f38b3ef54db068ea5ad6d5a67b67b3f505dfee581dd3879 Requires -------- quickjs-ng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libqjs.so.0()(64bit) quickjs-ng-libs(aarch-64) rtld(GNU_HASH) quickjs-ng-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ld-linux-aarch64.so.1()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) quickjs-ng-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): cmake-filesystem(aarch-64) libqjs.so.0()(64bit) quickjs-ng-libs(aarch-64) quickjs-ng-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- quickjs-ng: quickjs-ng quickjs-ng(aarch-64) quickjs-ng-libs: libqjs.so.0()(64bit) quickjs-ng-libs quickjs-ng-libs(aarch-64) quickjs-ng-devel: cmake(qjs) quickjs-ng-devel quickjs-ng-devel(aarch-64) quickjs-ng-doc: quickjs-ng-doc 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-aarch64 Active plugins: C/C++, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Java, Haskell, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, Python, R, PHP 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%23c29 -- _______________________________________________ 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
