Bug 1164485

I'll review this.

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

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



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

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:
     "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 124 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/grdryn/1164485-nodejs-
     leaflet/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: 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 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 6 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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[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
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[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 js-leaflet
[?]: Package functions as described.
[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.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: 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
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

Generic:
[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.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nodejs-leaflet-0.7.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          js-leaflet-0.7.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-leaflet-0.7.3-1.fc22.src.rpm
nodejs-leaflet.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-leaflet.noarch: W: no-documentation
nodejs-leaflet.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/leaflet/dist /usr/share/javascript/leaflet
js-leaflet.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/js-leaflet/LICENSE
js-leaflet.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/js-leaflet/README.md
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# rpmlint nodejs-leaflet js-leaflet
nodejs-leaflet.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-leaflet.noarch: W: no-documentation
nodejs-leaflet.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/leaflet/dist /usr/share/javascript/leaflet
js-leaflet.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/js-leaflet/LICENSE
js-leaflet.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/js-leaflet/README.md
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@localhost /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
nodejs-leaflet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    js-leaflet
    nodejs(engine)

js-leaflet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    web-assets-filesystem



Provides
--------
nodejs-leaflet:
    nodejs-leaflet
    npm(leaflet)

js-leaflet:
    js-leaflet



Source checksums
----------------
http://registry.npmjs.org/leaflet/-/leaflet-0.7.3.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9aa0974197600df5f75d179363e63d0b7e40837d85641ea68a5f892e168d5bf5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9aa0974197600df5f75d179363e63d0b7e40837d85641ea68a5f892e168d5bf5


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1164485
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

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

Should there be a check section here that runs the tests? The CI for the project runs `jake test`[1]...should this package do that also?

[1] https://travis-ci.org/Leaflet/Leaflet

The problem is that the tests require PhantomJS because they are browser based, and that's a whole disaster area of it's own that isn't packaged for Fedora.

That's the only reason I haven't bothered with them...

Having npm installed various extra modules locally:

happen
jshint
karma
karma-mocha
karma-chrome-launcher
karma-phantomjs-launcher

which includes downloading the big binary blob for PhantomJS... the tests can then be run:

Checking for JS errors...
	Check passed.

Checking for specs JS errors...
	Check passed.

Running tests...

................................................................................
................................................................................
................................................................................
.........................................
PhantomJS 1.9.8 (Linux): Executed 281 of 281 SUCCESS (0.391 secs / 0.301 secs)
	Tests ran successfully.

Updated package with (disabled by default) support for tests:

Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-leaflet.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-leaflet-0.7.3-2.fc20.src.rpm

Great. Looks good to me now. Thanks for packaging!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: nodejs-leaflet
Short Description: An open source JavaScript Library for Interactive Maps
Upstream URL: http://leafletjs.com/
Owners: tomh
Branches: f20 f21
InitialCC: jamielinux

Git done (by process-git-requests).

nodejs-leaflet-0.7.3-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-leaflet-0.7.3-2.fc20

nodejs-leaflet-0.7.3-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-leaflet-0.7.3-2.fc21

nodejs-leaflet-0.7.3-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

nodejs-leaflet-0.7.3-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

nodejs-leaflet-0.7.3-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.