Bug 1169924
Summary: | Review Request: nodejs-supports-color - Detect whether a terminal supports color | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ralph Bean <rbean> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Piotr Popieluch <piotr1212> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, piotr1212 |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | piotr1212:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-03-05 14:40:56 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1115680 |
Description
Ralph Bean
2014-12-02 18:13:57 UTC
This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8278790 1. Please enable tests: all BR's are now in Fedora and the tests succeed here. Source0: http://registry.npmjs.org/%{barename}/-/%{barename}-%{version}.tgz and in %prep cp -p %{SOURCE1} . 2. Cli.js executable doesn't work when run: $ supports-color module.js:340 throw err; ^ Error: Cannot find module './package.json' at Function.Module._resolveFilename (module.js:338:15) at Function.Module._load (module.js:280:25) at Module.require (module.js:364:17) at require (module.js:380:17) at Object.<anonymous> (/usr/bin/supports-color:3:11) at Module._compile (module.js:456:26) at Object.Module._extensions..js (module.js:474:10) at Module.load (module.js:356:32) at Function.Module._load (module.js:312:12) at Function.Module.runMain (module.js:497:10) This can be fixed by installing cli.js into the module directory and making a symlink in /usr/bin, like this: %install mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/supports-color cp -pr package.json index.js cli.js \ %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/supports-color mkdir -p %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/ ln -s %{nodejs_sitelib}/supports-color/cli.js \ %{buildroot}/%{_bindir}/supports-color 3. Please comment out %nodejs_symlink_deps --build in the %build section. I do understand that you want to keep this to keep all your node modules the same, but it gives warnings when running the tests. Commenting out would be a good compromise? ARNING: the symlink for dependency "require-uncached" already exists This could mean that the dependency exists in both devDependencies and dependencies, which may cause trouble for people using this module with npm. Please report this to upstream. For more information, see: <https://github.com/tchollingsworth/nodejs-packaging/pull/1> Looks good for the rest, you *could* add a manpage if you like. Will approve when you enable test, comment out %nodejs_symlink_deps --build and fix the cli.js symlink issue. 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1169924-nodejs-supports- color/licensecheck.txt [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 [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. [x]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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-supports-color-1.2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm nodejs-supports-color-1.2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm nodejs-supports-color.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-supports-color.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary supports-color 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@pontifex /]# rpmlint nodejs-supports-color nodejs-supports-color.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-supports-color.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary supports-color 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@pontifex /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nodejs-supports-color (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env nodejs(engine) Provides -------- nodejs-supports-color: nodejs-supports-color npm(supports-color) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/supports-color/-/supports-color-1.2.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 575916b4275b3b5d544e917433ce65651998fc878e9a1e020abe5b10fbec7ec8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 575916b4275b3b5d544e917433ce65651998fc878e9a1e020abe5b10fbec7ec8 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1169924 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 Thanks for the review, Piotr! Here's a new release that that addresses your three comments: Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/nodejs-supports-color.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/nodejs-supports-color-1.2.0-2.fc21.src.rpm looks good, APPROVED New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-supports-color Short Description: Detect whether a terminal supports color Upstream URL: https://npmjs.org/package/supports-color Owners: ralph Branches: f21,f20,f19,epel7 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). Swapped EOL f19 for freshly branched f22. nodejs-supports-color-1.2.0-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-supports-color-1.2.0-2.el7 nodejs-supports-color-1.2.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-supports-color-1.2.0-2.fc21 nodejs-supports-color-1.2.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-supports-color-1.2.0-2.fc20 nodejs-supports-color-1.2.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. nodejs-supports-color-1.2.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. nodejs-supports-color-1.2.0-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. |