Bug 1246724
| Summary: | Review Request: nodejs-js-beautify - jsbeautifier.org for node | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Eduardo Mayorga <e> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | gil cattaneo <puntogil> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, puntogil |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | puntogil:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2015-07-27 21:44:52 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: | 1228942, 1236249 | ||
|
Description
Eduardo Mayorga
2015-07-25 03:40:13 UTC
can you review this one for me? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236511 available a newer release: 1.5.10 Url: https://github.com/beautify-web/js-beautify/tags please consider upgrading Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1246724 -nodejs-js-beautify/licensecheck.txt Unknown or generated -------------------- package/js/index.js package/js/lib/unpackers/javascriptobfuscator_unpacker.js package/js/lib/unpackers/myobfuscate_unpacker.js package/js/lib/unpackers/p_a_c_k_e_r_unpacker.js package/js/lib/unpackers/urlencode_unpacker.js package/js/test/amd-beautify-tests.js package/js/test/beautify-html-tests.js package/js/test/node-beautify-perf-tests.js package/js/test/node-beautify-tests.js package/js/test/resources/example1.js package/js/test/sanitytest.js package/test/data/css.js package/test/data/html.js package/test/data/javascript.js package/test/git-status-clear.sh package/test/underscore-min.js package/test/underscore.js [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/node_modules/js- beautify(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No), /usr/share/licenses /nodejs-js-beautify(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No), /usr/share/doc/nodejs-js-beautify(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No), /usr/lib/node_modules/js-beautify/node_modules(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No) [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. js/lib/unpackers/javascriptobfuscator_unpacker.js js/lib/unpackers/myobfuscate_unpacker.js js/lib/unpackers/p_a_c_k_e_r_unpacker.js [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. [-]: 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 40960 bytes in 2 files. [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.10 starting (python version = 3.4.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.10 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.10 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/gil/1246724-nodejs-js-beautify/results/nodejs-js-beautify-1.5.9-1.fc23.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/ --releasever 23 install /home/gil/1246724-nodejs-js-beautify/results/nodejs-js-beautify-1.5.9-1.fc23.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-js-beautify-1.5.9-1.fc23.noarch.rpm nodejs-js-beautify-1.5.9-1.fc23.src.rpm nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jsbeautifier -> beautifier nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C jsbeautifier.org for node nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reindent -> reinvent, re indent, re-indent nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bookmarklets -> bookmark lets, bookmark-lets, booklets nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deobfuscate -> obfuscate nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascriptobfuscator -> JavaScript nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/js-beautify/node_modules/config-chain /usr/lib/node_modules/config-chain nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/js-beautify/node_modules/mkdirp /usr/lib/node_modules/mkdirp nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/js-beautify/node_modules/nopt /usr/lib/node_modules/nopt nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jsbeautifier -> beautifier nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C jsbeautifier.org for node nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reindent -> reinvent, re indent, re-indent nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bookmarklets -> bookmark lets, bookmark-lets, booklets nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deobfuscate -> obfuscate nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascriptobfuscator -> JavaScript 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. Requires -------- nodejs-js-beautify (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(config-chain) npm(mkdirp) npm(nopt) Provides -------- nodejs-js-beautify: nodejs-js-beautify npm(js-beautify) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/js-beautify/-/js-beautify-1.5.9.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 26c9cd062c345d31933645b35c5d61d1aee2adaffac0f5f637a0f2290234fd42 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 26c9cd062c345d31933645b35c5d61d1aee2adaffac0f5f637a0f2290234fd42 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1246724 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Blocking issues:
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
js/lib/unpackers/javascriptobfuscator_unpacker.js
js/lib/unpackers/myobfuscate_unpacker.js
js/lib/unpackers/p_a_c_k_e_r_unpacker.js
there are something of wrong on install section
these file are not packaged or compiled
[?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
package/js/lib/beautify-css.js
package/js/lib/beautify-html.js
package/js/lib/beautify.js
package/js/lib/cli.js
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1246724
-nodejs-js-beautify/licensecheck.txt
Unknown or generated
--------------------
package/js/index.js
package/js/lib/unpackers/urlencode_unpacker.js
I do not think the scripts in js/lib/unpackers are bundled libraries but rather just files put into a subdirectory. Spec URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-js-beautify.spec SRPM URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-js-beautify-1.5.10-1.fc22.src.rpm Build fail DEBUG util.py:378: No matching package to install: 'npm(benchmark)' DEBUG util.py:378: No matching package to install: 'npm(jshint)' see also Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10487639 Suggestion, use:
%if 0%{?fedora}
# Unavailable deps npm(jshint) npm(benchmark)
%bcond_with test
%endif
%if %{with test}
BuildRequires: npm(node-static)
BuildRequires: npm(jshint)
BuildRequires: npm(benchmark)
BuildRequires: npm(requirejs)
BuildRequires: npm(mustache)
%endif
%check
%if %{with test}
%nodejs_symlink_deps --check
./js/test/shell-smoke-test.sh
%endif
Done. Spec URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-js-beautify.spec SRPM URL: https://mayorga.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-js-beautify-1.5.10-2.fc22.src.rpm Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1246724 -nodejs-js-beautify/licensecheck.txt Please, report the problem to upstream, for add license header Unknown or generated -------------------- js-beautify-1.5.10/js/index.js js-beautify-1.5.10/js/lib/unpackers/javascriptobfuscator_unpacker.js js-beautify-1.5.10/js/lib/unpackers/myobfuscate_unpacker.js js-beautify-1.5.10/js/lib/unpackers/p_a_c_k_e_r_unpacker.js js-beautify-1.5.10/js/lib/unpackers/urlencode_unpacker.js [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/lib/node_modules/js- beautify/lib/unpackers(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No), /usr/share/doc/nodejs-js-beautify(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No), /usr/lib/node_modules/js-beautify(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No), /usr/lib/node_modules/js-beautify/node_modules(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No), /usr/lib/node_modules/js- beautify/lib(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No), /usr/share/licenses/nodejs-js-beautify(languages, langpacks:, enabled, are, No) [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. [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 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]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.10 starting (python version = 3.4.2)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.10 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.10 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/gil/1246724-nodejs-js-beautify/results/nodejs-js-beautify-1.5.10-2.fc23.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/ --releasever 23 install /home/gil/1246724-nodejs-js-beautify/results/nodejs-js-beautify-1.5.10-2.fc23.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-js-beautify-1.5.10-2.fc23.noarch.rpm nodejs-js-beautify-1.5.10-2.fc23.src.rpm nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jsbeautifier -> beautifier nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C jsbeautifier.org for node nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reindent -> reinvent, re indent, re-indent nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bookmarklets -> bookmark lets, bookmark-lets, booklets nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deobfuscate -> obfuscate nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascriptobfuscator -> JavaScript nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/js-beautify/node_modules/config-chain /usr/lib/node_modules/config-chain nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/js-beautify/node_modules/mkdirp /usr/lib/node_modules/mkdirp nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/js-beautify/node_modules/nopt /usr/lib/node_modules/nopt nodejs-js-beautify.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary js-beautify nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) jsbeautifier -> beautifier nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C jsbeautifier.org for node nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reindent -> reinvent, re indent, re-indent nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bookmarklets -> bookmark lets, bookmark-lets, booklets nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deobfuscate -> obfuscate nodejs-js-beautify.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascriptobfuscator -> JavaScript 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings. Requires -------- nodejs-js-beautify (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env nodejs(engine) npm(config-chain) npm(mkdirp) npm(nopt) Provides -------- nodejs-js-beautify: nodejs-js-beautify npm(js-beautify) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/beautify-web/js-beautify/archive/v1.5.10/nodejs-js-beautify-1.5.10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 055ce354da5f38387020d87ec68bd926af43eb36766b560f721b39fc3617c86a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 055ce354da5f38387020d87ec68bd926af43eb36766b560f721b39fc3617c86a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1246724 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 NON blocking issues:
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 30 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1246724
-nodejs-js-beautify/licensecheck.txt
Please, report the problem to upstream, for add license header
Unknown or generated
--------------------
js-beautify-1.5.10/js/index.js
js-beautify-1.5.10/js/lib/unpackers/javascriptobfuscator_unpacker.js
js-beautify-1.5.10/js/lib/unpackers/myobfuscate_unpacker.js
js-beautify-1.5.10/js/lib/unpackers/p_a_c_k_e_r_unpacker.js
js-beautify-1.5.10/js/lib/unpackers/urlencode_unpacker.js
approved
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-js-beautify Short Description: jsbeautifier.org for node Upstream URL: http://jsbeautifier.org Owners: mayorga williamjmorenor Branches: f23 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). |