Bug 1433784

An updated variant with bundled dependencies, because the previous attempt to package dependencies properly unbundled was not successful and we still miss this package for the nodejs container image.

Reasoning for the bundling: Similar to nodejs+npm packages, packaging and maintaining depended npm modules separately is worth the benefits. Bundle provides are handled automatically, and npm package upstreams are used to update the dependencies regularly, so from the security perspective, this should be fine.

Spec URL: https://hhorak.fedorapeople.org/nodemon/nodejs-nodemon.spec
SRPM URL: https://hhorak.fedorapeople.org/nodemon/nodejs-nodemon-2.0.3-1.fc32.src.rpm

Description:
Simple monitor script for use during development of a node.js app.

For use during development of a node.js based application.

nodemon will watch the files in the directory in which nodemon
was started, and if any files change, nodemon will automatically
restart your node application.

nodemon does not require any changes to your code or method of
development. nodemon simply wraps your node application and keeps
an eye on any files that have changed. Remember that nodemon is a
replacement wrapper for node, think of it as replacing the word "node"
on the command line when you run your script.

scratch build of nodejs-nodemon-2.0.3-1.fc32.src.rpm for f32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=43969008

Fedora Account System Username: hhorak

Honza, the fedora-review flag is to be set by a reviewer. Not by a submitter.

Zuzka, Jan, would anybody from you be so kind and do a review for this? It's really bad that we ship nodemon in RHEL and not have it in Fedora.

I'll try to look at it this week.

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 LICENSE is not marked as %license
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/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", "Expat License", "Expat License ISC
     License", "ISC License", "*No copyright* Expat License", "BSD 2-clause
     "Simplified" License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
     "Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* Public domain". 962 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/kasicka/temp/1433784-nodejs-nodemon/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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 17 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[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).
[x]: 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
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: %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]: 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.

Approved.

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs-nodemon

FEDORA-2020-91d550a9b1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-91d550a9b1

FEDORA-2020-91d550a9b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-91d550a9b1`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-91d550a9b1

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-91d550a9b1 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.