Bug 1292181

Summary: Review Request: nodejs-difflib - Text diff library ported from Python's difflib module
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Piotr Popieluch <piotr1212>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: package-review, piotr1212
Target Milestone: ---Flags: piotr1212: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-05-27 20:20:59 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: 1278960    
Bug Blocks: 956806    

Description Jared Smith 2015-12-16 16:44:18 UTC
Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-difflib/nodejs-difflib.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-difflib/nodejs-difflib-0.2.4-2.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Text diff library ported from Python's difflib module
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

Comment 1 Jared Smith 2015-12-16 16:45:25 UTC
This package depends on nodejs-heap (#1278960), but that is already built for Rawhide, so this package should be ready for review.

Comment 2 Piotr Popieluch 2015-12-17 08:10:48 UTC
APPROVED

Readme is marked as doc and license, which should be correct. We can ignore the issue.



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

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


Issues:
=======
- 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.
  Note: License file README.md is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292181-nodejs-
     difflib/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.
[x]: 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 30720 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]: 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.
[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.
[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:
[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-difflib-0.2.4-2.fc24.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-difflib-0.2.4-2.fc24.src.rpm
nodejs-difflib.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-difflib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/difflib/node_modules/heap /usr/lib/node_modules/heap
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-difflib.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-difflib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/difflib/node_modules/heap /usr/lib/node_modules/heap
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
nodejs-difflib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nodejs(engine)
    npm(heap)



Provides
--------
nodejs-difflib:
    nodejs-difflib
    npm(difflib)



Source checksums
----------------
https://registry.npmjs.org/difflib/-/difflib-0.2.4.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : af5779820adb81a4eaeeb53a7ddb5df3e7e9c6af55d3fee52da0a72354941239
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af5779820adb81a4eaeeb53a7ddb5df3e7e9c6af55d3fee52da0a72354941239


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1292181
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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-12-17 13:52:01 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-difflib

Comment 4 Piotr Popieluch 2016-05-27 20:20:59 UTC
built in rawhide+f24, closing