Bug 1273134

Summary:	Review Request: nodejs-tmatch - acilitate the `t.match()` method in `tap`
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora>
Component:	Package Review	Assignee:	Tom Hughes <tom>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	package-review, tom
Target Milestone:	---	Keywords:	Reopened
Target Release:	---	Flags:	tom: fedora-review+
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-07-23 18:50:02 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:	956806, 1387531

Description Jared Smith 2015-10-19 17:45:29 UTC

Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tmatch/nodejs-tmatch.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tmatch/nodejs-tmatch-1.0.2-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: This module exists to facilitate the `t.match()` method in `tap`
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2015-10-22 23:52:18 UTC

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: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1273134-nodejs-
     tmatch/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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
     Note: Found : Packager: Tom Hughes <tom>
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[-]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: 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:
[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-tmatch-1.0.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-tmatch-1.0.2-1.fc24.src.rpm
nodejs-tmatch.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-tmatch.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tests-1.0.2.tar.bz2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




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



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



Provides
--------
nodejs-tmatch:
    nodejs-tmatch
    npm(tmatch)



Source checksums
----------------
https://registry.npmjs.org/tmatch/-/tmatch-1.0.2.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e1b48fa8704ac15ab7c064424ee0a911a4dccd1b709dedfe8d20f6fe1647d1a2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e1b48fa8704ac15ab7c064424ee0a911a4dccd1b709dedfe8d20f6fe1647d1a2


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1273134
Buildroot used: compton-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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 2 Tom Hughes 2015-10-22 23:52:49 UTC

Tests don't actually need to be disabled because of tap as the one we have
already is good enough.

Tests are supposed to be run with tap, not mocha.

Tests are in the npmjs tar ball, so no need to get them from github.

Comment 3 Jared Smith 2016-07-01 16:52:10 UTC

Updating an ancient package review that slipped through the cracks:

Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tmatch/nodejs-tmatch.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-tmatch/nodejs-tmatch-2.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

Comment 4 Tom Hughes 2016-07-01 18:23:02 UTC

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: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1273134-nodejs-
     tmatch/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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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-tmatch-2.0.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-tmatch-2.0.1-1.fc25.src.rpm
nodejs-tmatch.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
nodejs-tmatch.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



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



Provides
--------
nodejs-tmatch:
    nodejs-tmatch
    npm(tmatch)



Source checksums
----------------
https://registry.npmjs.org/tmatch/-/tmatch-2.0.1.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 79830b72d7f73f5203b51cd0d34bb57b92000cc20fa4223edd4489fa4129fe13
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 79830b72d7f73f5203b51cd0d34bb57b92000cc20fa4223edd4489fa4129fe13


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1273134
Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 5 Tom Hughes 2016-07-01 18:23:33 UTC

Looks good now.

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-07-01 19:31:40 UTC

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

Comment 7 Jared Smith 2016-07-02 00:13:01 UTC

Pushed to Rawhide and F24.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2016-07-06 23:29:18 UTC

nodejs-tmatch-2.0.1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9be88c573e

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2016-07-10 16:00:17 UTC

nodejs-tmatch-2.0.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9be88c573e

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2016-07-23 18:49:59 UTC

nodejs-tmatch-2.0.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.