Bug 894665

Doesn't build, the spec requires tap

Fixed.

Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-deep-equal.spec
SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4876468

I've reassigned this review to myself. Hope that's OK misc!


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

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


Issues:
=======
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[ ]: 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 %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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.
[ ]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
     Note: Source0 (deep-equal-0.0.0.tgz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[ ]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
          nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
nodejs-deep-equal.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal
nodejs-deep-equal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal
nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal
nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal
nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint nodejs-deep-equal
nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal
nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal
nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    nodejs(engine)



Provides
--------
nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm:
    
    nodejs-deep-equal = 0.0.0-2.fc18
    npm(deep-equal) = 0.0.0



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://registry.npmjs.org/deep-equal/-/deep-equal-0.0.0.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6a5666d4bfa5d2786a9f86ede2eaa8252f783edb9d78e69cba645f7cb6e153b8
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a5666d4bfa5d2786a9f86ede2eaa8252f783edb9d78e69cba645f7cb6e153b8


Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n ./nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm

Please inform upstream that they need to ship a LICENSE file. Otherwise approved!

Oops, wrong file copy and pasted as some [x]s are missing. Pasted again below. (Review remains approved.)

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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: %defattr present but not needed
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[-]: 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 %doc.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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]: Buildroot is not present
     Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[!]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
     Note: Source0 (deep-equal-0.0.0.tgz)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: nodejs-deep-equal
Short Description: Node's assert.deepEqual algorithm
Owners: patches
Branches: f18 el6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4-1.fc18,nodejs-buffer-equal-0.0.0-1.fc18,nodejs-charm-0.1.0-1.fc18,nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18,nodejs-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc18,nodejs-source-map-0.1.8-3.fc18,nodejs-traverse-0.6.3-2.fc18,nodejs-wordwrap-0.0.2-2.fc18,nodejs-yamlish-0.0.5-1.fc18,uglify-js-2.2.4-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4-1.fc18,nodejs-buffer-equal-0.0.0-1.fc18,nodejs-charm-0.1.0-1.fc18,nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18,nodejs-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc18,nodejs-source-map-0.1.8-3.fc18,nodejs-traverse-0.6.3-2.fc18,nodejs-wordwrap-0.0.2-2.fc18,nodejs-yamlish-0.0.5-1.fc18,uglify-js-2.2.4-1.fc18

nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-buffer-equal-0.0.0-1.fc18, nodejs-charm-0.1.0-1.fc18, nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18, nodejs-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc18, nodejs-source-map-0.1.8-3.fc18, nodejs-traverse-0.6.3-2.fc18, nodejs-wordwrap-0.0.2-2.fc18, nodejs-yamlish-0.0.5-1.fc18, nodejs-difflet-0.2.3-2.fc18, uglify-js1-1.3.4-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

Was any consideration given to the question of whether this counts as bundled code given that it is basically copied from assert.js in the node source?

This has now come up in the context of the nodejs-should review (#911188) as that also contains more or less the same code copied from node.

Naturally enough all three versions are now subtly different...

I must admit that, as reviewer, I did not give this particular point the attention it deserved.

Bug opened:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915082

nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-buffer-equal-0.0.0-1.fc18, nodejs-charm-0.1.0-1.fc18, nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18, nodejs-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc18, nodejs-source-map-0.1.8-3.fc18, nodejs-traverse-0.6.3-2.fc18, nodejs-wordwrap-0.0.2-2.fc18, nodejs-yamlish-0.0.5-1.fc18, nodejs-difflet-0.2.3-2.fc18, uglify-js1-1.3.4-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.