Bug 977133
Summary: | Review Request: nodejs-package - Provides an easy way to export package.json data | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | notting, package-review, tchollingsworth |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | tchollingsworth:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | nodejs-package-1.0.1-1.el6 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-06-26 21:34:50 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 956806, 977135 |
Description
Jamie Nguyen
2013-06-23 17:08:24 UTC
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Status: APPROVED ===== Things to Consider ==== [ ]: This module is deprecated upstream. Consider working with upstreams using this module to port to read-package-json. ===== 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]: 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. MIT in License.md -> OK [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). nodejs macros used -> OK [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. nodejs- prefix used -> OK [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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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. % npm -q view package version 1.0.1 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. missing deps -> OK [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-package-1.0.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-package.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) json -> son, j son nodejs-package.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son nodejs-package.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. OK Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-package nodejs-package.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) json -> son, j son nodejs-package.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son nodejs-package.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' OK Requires -------- nodejs-package (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) OK Provides -------- nodejs-package: nodejs-package npm(package) OK Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/package/-/package-1.0.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ac690349429d4db7876f62a94b0c69dfab4c83321a6c4d7397c4061303c5a3a6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ac690349429d4db7876f62a94b0c69dfab4c83321a6c4d7397c4061303c5a3a6 OK Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (eaf16cd) last change: 2013-05-30 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-vanilla-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b977133 ===== Things to Consider ==== [ ]: This module is deprecated upstream. Consider working with upstreams using this module to port to read-package-json. Oh, I didn't realise this. I'll open an issue upstream and see what needs to be done. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-package Short Description: Provides an easy way to export package.json data Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). nodejs-package-1.0.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-package-1.0.1-1.fc19 nodejs-package-1.0.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-package-1.0.1-1.fc18 nodejs-package-1.0.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-package-1.0.1-1.el6 nodejs-package-1.0.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. nodejs-package-1.0.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. nodejs-package-1.0.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. |