Bug 2369466
| Summary: | Review Request: nodejs24 - JavaScript runtime | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jan Staněk <jstanek> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> |
| Status: | NEW --- | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | aradchen, package-review |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | aradchen:
needinfo?
(jstanek) |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | --- | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | Type: | --- | |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Jan Staněk
2025-05-30 17:55:52 UTC
The ticket summary is not in the correct format.
Expected:
Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here>
Found:
Review Request: nodejs24 – JavaScript runtime
As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to
be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a
build by typing [fedora-review-service-build].
---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/nodejs-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09104635-nodejs24/nodejs24.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/jstanek/nodejs-ng/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09104635-nodejs24/nodejs24-24.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: NodeJS JavaScript runtime platform, with refactored/rewritten packaging script Fedora Account System Username: jstanek Trying to trigger copr build [fedora-review-service-build] The ticket summary is not in the correct format.
Expected:
Review Request: <main package name here> - <short summary here>
Found:
Review Request: nodejs24 – JavaScript runtime
As a consequence, the package name cannot be parsed and submitted to
be automatically build. Please modify the ticket summary and trigger a
build by typing [fedora-review-service-build].
---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
[fedora-review-service-build] Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9110281 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2369466-nodejs24/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09110281-nodejs24/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string. [fedora-review] Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. Note: Multiple Release: tags found See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/DistTag/ - 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.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51717521 bytes in 478 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "ISC License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "MIT License [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) [generated file]", "FSF Unlimited License [generated file]", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or Public domain", "Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016)", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License and/or ISC License and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* ISC License", "*No copyright* Artistic License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "ISC License and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 and/or MIT License", "Apache License and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "zlib License", "*No copyright* zlib License", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "X11 License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "FSF All Permissive License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention) and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "FSF Unlimited License (with License Retention)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License and/or MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "ICU License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution 3.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons CC0 1.0", "*No copyright* Apache License", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "*No copyright* ISC License and/or MIT License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License", "Apple Public Source License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0 and/or BSD 3-Clause License", "BSD 3-Clause License and/or GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 18866 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/aradchen/2369466-nodejs24/srpm/review- nodejs24/licensecheck.txt [?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. ==================== take a look ===================================== [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/doc/nodejs24/npm [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/doc/nodejs24/npm, /usr/share/node-24 ==================== take a look ===================================== [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [?]: 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. [ ]: Only use %_sourcedir in very specific situations. Note: %_sourcedir/$RPM_SOURCE_DIR is used. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nodejs24-devel , v8-13.6-devel , nodejs24-libs , nodejs24-full-i18n , nodejs24-docs , nodejs24-npm [x]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 33034240 bytes in /usr/share nodejs24-full-i18n-24.0.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm:31938560 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs24-24.0.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm nodejs24-devel-24.0.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm v8-13.6-devel-13.6.233.8-1.24.0.1.1.fc43.x86_64.rpm nodejs24-libs-24.0.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm nodejs24-full-i18n-24.0.1-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm nodejs24-docs-24.0.1-1.fc43.noarch.rpm nodejs24-npm-11.3.0-1.24.0.1.1.fc43.x86_64.rpm nodejs24-24.0.1-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ ....large 8 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 128 errors, 365 warnings, 44 filtered, 128 badness; has taken 13.8 s -------- Few issues on rpmlint that could be easy fix and/or generally brought my attention: -------- nodejs24-npm.x86_64: E: zero-length /usr/lib/node_modules_24/npm/.npmrc not sure, maybe linter expects to have this file to be hidden? (.npmrc), we have it just npmrc nodejs24.spec:3: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR its intentional, loading scripts (WIP) nodejs24-docs.noarch: W: unexpanded-macro dependency nodejs%{nodejs_version_major} = 1:24.0.1-1.fc43 %{nodejs_version_major} typo (nodejs->node) nodejs24-full-i18n.x86_64: E: no-binary maybe we should add "BuildArches: noarch" nodejs24-npm.x86_64: E: no-binary also add "BuildArches: noarch" perhaps nodejs24-npm.x86_64: E: invalid-locale-man-dir /usr/share/man/nodejs-24/man1/npm-undeprecate.1.gz nodejs24-npm.x86_64: E: invalid-locale-man-dir /usr/share/man/nodejs-24/man1/npm-uninstall.1.gz nodejs24-npm.x86_64: E: invalid-locale-man-dir /usr/share/man/nodejs-24/man1/npm-unpublish.1.gz nodejs24-npm.x86_64: E: invalid-locale-man-dir /usr/share/man/nodejs-24/man1/npm-unstar.1.gz nodejs24-npm.x86_64: E: invalid-locale-man-dir /usr/share/man/nodejs-24/man1/npm-update.1.gz nodejs24-npm.x86_64: E: invalid-locale-man-dir /usr/share/man/nodejs-24/man1/npm-version.1.gz nodejs24-npm.x86_64: E: invalid-locale-man-dir /usr/share/man/nodejs-24/man1/npm-view.1.gz nodejs24-npm.x86_64: E: invalid-locale-man-dir /usr/share/man/nodejs-24/man1/npm-whoami.1.gz sort of intentional, should be called ../LANGCODE/.., not ../nodejs-24/.. skip probably ``` # Install HTML documentation to %%_pkgdocdir mkdir -p "${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_pkgdocdir}/npm/" cp -prt "${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_pkgdocdir}/npm/" deps/npm/docs ``` |