Bug 1258222

When I ran fedora-review tool on this, I got build failed for %check

    # tests 41012
    # pass  41010
    # fail  2

In test.js file, failure occurred for 156,157 lines.

I think this is timing related as it sometimes succeeds and sometimes fails. I've set a longer timeout, would you please check again?

Thanks. now it worked fine. Just make sure you import updated srpm as fedora-review found updated spec only.

Not a blocker but I also found that though the license is MIT there is one "no-false-attribs" clause is included which looks fine to me.


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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 25 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/parag/1258222-nodejs-fd/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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nodejs-fd-0.0.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-fd-0.0.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
nodejs-fd.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-fd.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-fd.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-fd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-fd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-fd.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/parag/1258222-nodejs-fd/srpm/nodejs-fd.spec	2015-12-15 16:40:59.332877199 +0530
+++ /home/parag/1258222-nodejs-fd/srpm-unpacked/nodejs-fd.spec	2015-08-30 17:13:04.000000000 +0530
@@ -41,5 +41,5 @@
 %check
 %nodejs_symlink_deps --check
-tap --timeout 300 test.js
+tap test.js
 %endif
 


Requires
--------
nodejs-fd (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nodejs(engine)



Provides
--------
nodejs-fd:
    nodejs-fd
    npm(fd)



Source checksums
----------------
https://registry.npmjs.org/fd/-/fd-0.0.2.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9a44302d9450071b0aaadbaaddb9af4ee1ff908e8b6f5e9f35570d4fa5547f33
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9a44302d9450071b0aaadbaaddb9af4ee1ff908e8b6f5e9f35570d4fa5547f33


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1258222 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64

APPROVED.

thanks

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-fd

nodejs-fd-0.0.2-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-25950482e7

nodejs-fd-0.0.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-fcc01e37e0

nodejs-fd-0.0.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6b847c09fb

nodejs-fd-0.0.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-fd'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6b847c09fb

nodejs-fd-0.0.2-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-fd'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-25950482e7

nodejs-fd-0.0.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-fd'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-fcc01e37e0

built in rawhide to unblock other review request bugs.

nodejs-fd-0.0.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

nodejs-fd-0.0.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.