Bug 911181

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

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


Issues:
=======
Checking: nodejs-growl-1.7.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-growl-1.7.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
nodejs-growl.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libnotify


===== 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]: 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.
[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
[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.
[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 %doc.
[x]: 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
[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).
[?]: 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 (growl-1.7.0.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.
[x]: %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.

===== 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.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nodejs-growl-1.7.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-growl-1.7.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
nodejs-growl.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libnotify
nodejs-growl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-growl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-growl.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-growl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-growl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint nodejs-growl
nodejs-growl.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency libnotify
nodejs-growl.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-growl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-growl.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
nodejs-growl-1.7.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    libnotify
    nodejs(engine)



Provides
--------
nodejs-growl-1.7.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm:
    
    nodejs-growl = 1.7.0-1.fc19
    npm(growl) = 1.7.0



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://registry.npmjs.org/growl/-/growl-1.7.0.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 52a6e9edae2fd5a66ddb87c52a398a17ee697eb0e8e1480e9506a6dcdbf3ffcf
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 52a6e9edae2fd5a66ddb87c52a398a17ee697eb0e8e1480e9506a6dcdbf3ffcf


Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 911181

Specify architecture and version for libnotify in Requires.

Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-growl.spec
SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-growl-1.7.0-2.fc18.src.rpm

I didn't even know a require from noarch to a specific arch like that was allowed... I can't see anything against it in the guidelines though.

Requiring /usr/bin/notify-send (which is what it actually wants) would be another option - not sure if it's in any way better or worse though.

I've never used the %{?_isa} thing before, but I found it buried here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Explicit_Requires

I considered using /usr/bin/notify-send instead, but since that binary is part of libnotify we should probably make sure the libnotify for the appropriate architecture is installed.

True - it would be a very odd setup that was trying to use a 32 bit userland with a 64 bit copy of this module and the main thing is to make sure we don't drag in the 32 bit libnotify unnecessarily.

So I think we can call this one approved as well.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: nodejs-growl
Short Description: Growl unobtrusive notifications for Node.js
Owners: jamielinux
Branches: f18 el6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

nodejs-growl-1.7.0-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-growl-1.7.0-2.fc18

nodejs-growl-1.7.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

nodejs-growl-1.7.0-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.