Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/gruntjs/nodejs-has-color.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/gruntjs/SRPMS/nodejs-has-color-0.1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux Description: Detects whether a terminal supports color.
Issues ====== It seems that the LICENSE file should be removed Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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). [-]: 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]: 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 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 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: [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. https://github.com/sindresorhus/has-color/pull/4 [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: 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]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-has-color-0.1.4-1.fc21.noarch.rpm nodejs-has-color-0.1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm nodejs-has-color.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. OK Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-has-color nodejs-has-color.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' OK Requires -------- nodejs-has-color (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) Provides -------- nodejs-has-color: nodejs-has-color npm(has-color) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/has-color/-/has-color-0.1.4.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 754e1e38027b2e0bbc4c91f8a6957a12942ec97be395b3b12040d765c382a52f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 754e1e38027b2e0bbc4c91f8a6957a12942ec97be395b3b12040d765c382a52f https://raw.github.com/sindresorhus/has-color/1ac05ea89b1ca734b563a77e35082c36daa5ac3c/test.js : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 38ce4f3ef36eb39294c686139599fe411cc11fafbb24d05efdc7e1d5e79269a1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 38ce4f3ef36eb39294c686139599fe411cc11fafbb24d05efdc7e1d5e79269a1 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -c -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1078472 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Looks OK. Package is APPROVED.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > It seems that the LICENSE file should be removed For Node.js modules that do not provide a copy of the license text, and whose upstreams have been unresponsive or unwilling to include a copy, I have been including the MIT (or BSD) license text within the RPM as suggested by these guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text "However, in situations where upstream is unresponsive, unable, or unwilling to provide proper full license text as part of the source code, and the indicated license requires that the full license text be included, Fedora Packagers must either: - Include a copy of what they believe the license text is intended to be, as part of the Fedora package in %doc, in order to remain in compliance."
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-has-color Short Description: Detects whether a terminal supports color Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: f19 f20 el6 InitialCC:
(In reply to Jamie Nguyen from comment #2) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1) > > It seems that the LICENSE file should be removed > > For Node.js modules that do not provide a copy of the license text, and > whose upstreams have been unresponsive or unwilling to include a copy, I > have been including the MIT (or BSD) license text within the RPM as > suggested by these guidelines: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Oh, OK. I forgot that. So please disregard the same comment in the other two or three reviews :)
Git done (by process-git-requests).