Bug 1415439

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 %license.
[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". 65 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1415439
     -nodejs-bunyan/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 112640 bytes in 15 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.
[!]: 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]: 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-bunyan-1.5.1-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-bunyan-1.5.1-1.fc27.src.rpm
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/bunyan/node_modules/safe-json-stringify /usr/lib/node_modules/safe-json-stringify
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/bunyan /usr/lib/node_modules/bunyan/bin/bunyan
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/bunyan/node_modules/mv /usr/lib/node_modules/mv
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bunyan
nodejs-bunyan.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-bunyan.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-bunyan.src: W: invalid-url Source2: examples-1.5.1.tar.bz2
nodejs-bunyan.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tests-1.5.1.tar.bz2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/bunyan /usr/lib/node_modules/bunyan/bin/bunyan
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/bunyan/node_modules/mv /usr/lib/node_modules/mv
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/bunyan/node_modules/safe-json-stringify /usr/lib/node_modules/safe-json-stringify
nodejs-bunyan.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bunyan
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.



Requires
--------
nodejs-bunyan (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nodejs
    nodejs(engine)
    npm(mv)
    npm(safe-json-stringify)



Provides
--------
nodejs-bunyan:
    nodejs-bunyan
    npm(bunyan)



Source checksums
----------------
https://registry.npmjs.org/bunyan/-/bunyan-1.5.1.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 954d728d535135346a26ecdfa951402d7aa2acd06438b5a7057d1fa33eb34eaf
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 954d728d535135346a26ecdfa951402d7aa2acd06438b5a7057d1fa33eb34eaf


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 1415439
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

The license file is not being included in the built package.

This seems to be a very old version - current is 1.8.8 so is there a reason for that?

The bin/bunyan script uses /usr/bin/env which while not technically banned (the guideline in question is still only in draft) is already being patched out of the example script so should likely be patched out there as well.

The old version was from my previous efforts to get this packaged up for Fedora in November of 2015.  Looks like I forgot to bump it before submitting it in January.  I've bumped to the current 1.8.9 version.

I've also included the license file, and cleaned up the script interpreters in a couple of files.

Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-bunyan/nodejs-bunyan.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-bunyan/nodejs-bunyan-1.8.9-1.fc27.src.rpm

Looks good now.

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