[Bug 495805] Review Request: jsl - Check JavaScript code for common mistakes

[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=495805


Jan Klepek <jan.klepek at hp.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jan.klepek at hp.com




--- Comment #3 from Jan Klepek <jan.klepek at hp.com>  2009-04-15 03:08:59 EDT ---
pkg review:

MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
- OK, except "no documentation" warning. Online documentation available, no
documentation provided in upstream source.

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. 
- not sure, page on sourceforge present this as MPLv1.1 or GPLv2+ or LGPLv2+

# 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.
- OK, no license file present

# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- OK

# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
- OK

# 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.
- OK

# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. 
- 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. 
- OK

# 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. 
- OK

# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
- OK, no locales

# 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.
- OK, no library found

# 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
- OK

# 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.
- OK

# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
- OK

# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, 
- OK
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- OK

# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
- OK

# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
- OK

# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. 
- OK, no documentation

# 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. 
- OK

# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. 
- OK

# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
- OK

# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
- OK, no .pc files

# 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.
- OK, no library

# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
- OK

# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
- OK, no .la files

# MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
- OK, no desktop application

# 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).
- OK

# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
- OK

conclusion:
- License reported on sourceforge differs from license in spec file.
- Even it is not blocker, would be good to know issue id or source of patches.

-- 
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.