Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at
Bug 915903 (qt5-qtjsbackend) - Review Request: qt5-qtjsbackend - Qt5 - QtJSBackend component
Summary: Review Request: qt5-qtjsbackend - Qt5 - QtJSBackend component
Alias: qt5-qtjsbackend
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Dan Mashal
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: qt5-qtbase, qt5-qtbase-review
Blocks: qt-reviews qt5-qtdeclarative
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2013-02-26 18:33 UTC by Rex Dieter
Modified: 2013-09-06 17:08 UTC (History)
7 users (show)

Fixed In Version: qt5-qtsvg-5.0.2-1.fc18
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-08-02 13:18:19 UTC
Type: ---
dan.mashal: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)
licensecheck (deleted)
2013-05-30 17:23 UTC, Gregor Tätzner
no flags Details

Description Rex Dieter 2013-02-26 18:33:53 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: Qt5 - QtJSBackend component
Fedora Account System Username: rdieter

Comment 1 Rex Dieter 2013-04-11 23:28:06 UTC
Spec URL:

* Thu Apr 11 2013 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 5.0.2-1
- 5.0.2

scratch build:

Comment 2 Rex Dieter 2013-05-09 14:15:35 UTC
jreznik: ping, you still want to work on this?

Spec URL:

* Thu May 09 2013 Rex Dieter <rdieter> 5.0.2-2
- include license files

Comment 3 Gregor Tätzner 2013-05-30 17:23:13 UTC
Created attachment 754990 [details]


- basically qtjsbackend is just a copy of the v8 javascript engine ('src/3rdparty/v8') - according to README modified

Comment 4 Kevin Kofler 2013-05-30 18:13:23 UTC
I wonder if this shouldn't be considered a fork of v8 rather than a bundled copy.

Comment 5 Rex Dieter 2013-06-12 01:44:30 UTC
ping, jreznik one more time.  been over a month since the last one, maybe we can find someone else?

Comment 6 Dan Mashal 2013-07-16 16:34:33 UTC
Picking this up per Rex's request.

Comment 7 Dan Mashal 2013-07-28 14:10:17 UTC
Looks fine, please update the packages to FC20 and make sure they install and work there before import.

Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

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

[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 33 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
[ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).

===== SHOULD items =====

[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: qt5-qtjsbackend-5.0.2-2.fc19.x86_64.rpm
qt5-qtjsbackend.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/ exit.5
qt5-qtjsbackend-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint qt5-qtjsbackend-devel qt5-qtjsbackend
qt5-qtjsbackend-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
qt5-qtjsbackend.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib64/ exit.5
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

qt5-qtjsbackend-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

qt5-qtjsbackend (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 65071ab9ab7d9024b7ba6d128a1c97ac09cf1b37818affb4238e4ba7d6665cc0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65071ab9ab7d9024b7ba6d128a1c97ac09cf1b37818affb4238e4ba7d6665cc0

Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 915903

Comment 8 Rex Dieter 2013-07-30 15:44:46 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: qt5-qtjsbackend
Short Description: Qt5 - QtJSBackend component
Owners: than rdieter jreznik kkofler ltinkl rnovacek
Branches: f18 f19

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-07-30 17:36:07 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 10 Rex Dieter 2013-08-02 13:18:19 UTC
imported, thanks.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2013-08-05 13:51:51 UTC
qt5-qtsvg-5.0.2-1.fc19,qt5-qtwebkit-5.0.2-7.fc19,qt5-qtdeclarative-5.0.2-3.fc19,qt5-qtjsbackend-5.0.2-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.,qt5-qtwebkit-5.0.2-7.fc19,qt5-qtdeclarative-5.0.2-3.fc19,qt5-qtjsbackend-5.0.2-2.fc19

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2013-08-05 13:52:51 UTC
qt5-qtsvg-5.0.2-1.fc18,qt5-qtwebkit-5.0.2-7.fc18,qt5-qtdeclarative-5.0.2-3.fc18,qt5-qtjsbackend-5.0.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.,qt5-qtwebkit-5.0.2-7.fc18,qt5-qtdeclarative-5.0.2-3.fc18,qt5-qtjsbackend-5.0.2-2.fc18

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2013-08-15 02:47:32 UTC
qt5-qtsvg-5.0.2-1.fc19, qt5-qtwebkit-5.0.2-7.fc19, qt5-qtdeclarative-5.0.2-3.fc19, qt5-qtjsbackend-5.0.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2013-08-15 03:01:52 UTC
qt5-qtsvg-5.0.2-1.fc18, qt5-qtwebkit-5.0.2-7.fc18, qt5-qtdeclarative-5.0.2-3.fc18, qt5-qtjsbackend-5.0.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Richard Shaw 2013-09-06 16:16:11 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: qt5-qtjsbackend
New Branches: el6
Owners: hobbes1069

Needed for future review request.
Co-maintainers welcomed.

Comment 16 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-09-06 17:08:59 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.