Bug 1420605

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

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

Suggestions:
1)As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js#Build_testing_in_.25check
Add following in %check
%{__nodejs} -e 'require("./")'

2) In %prep you can use following to silent the rpmlint wrong-script-interpreter error
sed -i '1 s|#!/usr/bin/env node|#!/usr/bin/node|' bin/grunt-wrap

Fix these before building package in koji

===== 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". 16 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/parag/1420605-nodejs-grunt-wrap/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.
[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-grunt-wrap-0.3.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-grunt-wrap-0.3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm
nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/grunt-wrap /usr/bin/env node
nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grunt-wrap
nodejs-grunt-wrap.src: W: strange-permission dltests.sh 775
nodejs-grunt-wrap.src: W: no-%build-section
nodejs-grunt-wrap.src: W: invalid-url Source2: tests-3894ad6ce5ea014b95fdf15eb8812c3640471147.tar.bz2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/grunt-wrap /usr/bin/env node
nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grunt-wrap
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
nodejs-grunt-wrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/env
    nodejs(engine)
    nodejs-grunt



Provides
--------
nodejs-grunt-wrap:
    nodejs-grunt-wrap
    npm(grunt-wrap)



Source checksums
----------------
http://registry.npmjs.org/grunt-wrap/-/grunt-wrap-0.3.0.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 814d3e48cdd464c126df9ef3a4fe63288bbc21c621c45859b9264c43a0e8bed6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 814d3e48cdd464c126df9ef3a4fe63288bbc21c621c45859b9264c43a0e8bed6
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/chrissrogers/grunt-wrap/3894ad6ce5ea014b95fdf15eb8812c3640471147/Gruntfile.js :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bf4e92b64d67b1e9040e10953835ca6b52f26f4a0788914c4909b4dc024823b5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bf4e92b64d67b1e9040e10953835ca6b52f26f4a0788914c4909b4dc024823b5


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1420605 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

APPROVED.

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

I fixed the /usr/bin/env node as you suggested, but the added test you suggested doesn't appear to work:

https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3040/17843040/build.log

I had attempted this when writing the spec file and hit that issue, but the package's own tests pass and it also does work when used. Thus, I determined that this check test wasn't needed. What do you think?

nodejs-grunt-wrap-0.3.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-b304ee57e0

nodejs-grunt-wrap-0.3.0-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-c95b33872d

nodejs-grunt-wrap-0.3.0-2.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-2017-b304ee57e0

nodejs-grunt-wrap-0.3.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2017-c95b33872d

(In reply to Randy Barlow from comment #3)
> I fixed the /usr/bin/env node as you suggested, but the added test you
> suggested doesn't appear to work:
> 
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3040/17843040/build.log
> 
> I had attempted this when writing the spec file and hit that issue, but the
> package's own tests pass and it also does work when used. Thus, I determined
> that this check test wasn't needed. What do you think?

Strange it failed. If its not working then its okay to remove it.

nodejs-grunt-wrap-0.3.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

nodejs-grunt-wrap-0.3.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.