https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1336728 --- Comment #4 from Marek Skalický <mskalick@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks Paulo for taking this review. (In reply to Paulo Andrade from comment #2) > Most of it should be trivial, as the spec is matching the pattern > of mozjs{17,24,31,38}. > > 1) I found it a bit weird this configure option > --disable-optimize \ > but noticed that CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS were still being correctly used, > but from reading the configure macros, if enabled it would just add > a redundant -O2. Is it related to patch2 (#1219542 shows an error > about nested functions too deep in optimization..)? Probably need some > notes about it. I think that --enable-optimize adds -O3 optimization. Maybe it is related to #1219542, however this optimization also caused tests regression in mozjs38 with newer gcc. With this option mozjs45 is also failing on ARM in koji. > > 2) I noticed it is now built with a bundled/static jemalloc. Is it > patched? Should either have a "Provides: jemalloc-static", use the > system one or build with --disable-jemalloc. Since upstream does not allow to system jemalloc and Fedora firefox also uses bundled jemalloc, I decided to use bundled one. So added Provides. > > 3) Please fix the LICENSE file: > ---8<--- > $ cat > 1336728-mozjs45/rpms-unpacked/mozjs45-45.1.1-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm/usr/share/ > licenses/mozjs45/LICENSE > Please see the file toolkit/content/license.html for the copyright licensing > conditions attached to this codebase, including copies of the licenses > concerned. > > You are not granted rights or licenses to the trademarks of the > Mozilla Foundation or any party, including without limitation the > Firefox name or logo. > > For more information, see: http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/licensing.html > ---8<--- > Also please check the partial fedora-review output below, and > comment about any missing entry in the License tag: > ---8<--- > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (4 clause) ISC", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF > address)", "*No copyright* BSL", "*No copyright* BSD", "LGPL (v2 or > later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0)", > "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", > "Apache (v2.0) MPL (v2.0)", "AFL-3.0", "LGPL (v2.1)", "ISC", "GPL (v2 > or later)", "libpng MPL (v2.0)", "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", > "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "AFL-2.1", > "Apache (v2.0) BSD (3 clause) MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "zlib/libpng", > "BSL", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 > clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)", "Apache (v2.0)", "FreeType", > "BSD (3 clause) ISC", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0) BSD (3 clause)", "*No > copyright* Public domain MPL (v2.0)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "MPL > (v1.1)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "libpng", "LGPL", "BSD (3 > clause)", "*No copyright* MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown > version)", "*No copyright* Beerware MPL (v2.0)", "MPL (v2.0)", "MPL > (v2.0) BSD (3 clause)", "MPL (v2.0) MIT/X11 (BSD like) LGPL (v2.1 or > later)", "GPL (v3)", "*No copyright* MPL (v2.0) BSD", "BSD (3 clause) > GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)", "BSL (v1.0)", > "MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "MPL (v2.0) MIT/X11 > (BSD like)", "Apache (v2.0) MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL (v2.1 or > later)", "BSD (3 clause) MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2)", "MPL (v1.0) > LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "MPL (v2.0) BSD (2 > clause)". 30918 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/pcpa/1336728-mozjs45/licensecheck.txt > ---8<--- Added MPLv1.1 in License: And %license now installs copy of MPLv2.0 license. Is this what you thought about? Spec URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/mozjs45/mozjs45.spec SRPM URL: https://mskalick.fedorapeople.org/mozjs45/mozjs45-45.1.1-2.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx