Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-archiver.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-archiver-0.13.0-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: a streaming interface for archive generation Fedora Account System Username: piotrp
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-archiver.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-archiver-0.14.3-1.fc21.src.rpm Updated to latest upstream. Tests fails, package needs nodejs-async 0.9
Several comments: - there's new upstream release - missing multiple BuildRequires for both dependencies and devDependencies - BuildRequires for dependencies shouldn't be inside conditional - missing %{?nodejs_find_provides_and_requires} macro - different URL listed on npmjs (although it redirects, you should probably change it) - incompatible dependencies and devDependencies versions are fixed by %nodejs_fixdep macro (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Patches/PackagingDrafts/NodeJS#Correcting_Dependencies) - missing devDependencies aren't really blocking build since they're used for tests (plus stream-bench is also missing from repositories) - Summary should start with capital letter
- Update to upstream 0.14.4 - Added el6 macro - Updated URL - Capitalized summary Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-archiver.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-node-archiver-0.14.4-1.fc22.src.rpm
Are you going to package stream-bench too or are you leaving the tests off? Current github version is 0.15.0 and you should probably change srcname to archiver, since node-archiver is a different module. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: nodejs-archiver.spec should be nodejs-node-archiver.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. 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. [-]: 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). [ ]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: 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. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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]: 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [-]: %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]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/kash/reviews/1177550-nodejs-archiver /srpm-unpacked/nodejs-archiver.spec See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-node-archiver-0.14.4-1.fc22.noarch.rpm nodejs-node-archiver-0.14.4-1.fc22.src.rpm nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C a streaming interface for archive generation nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/lodash /usr/lib/node_modules/lodash nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/zip-stream /usr/lib/node_modules/zip-stream nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/glob /usr/lib/node_modules/glob nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/buffer-crc32 /usr/lib/node_modules/buffer-crc32 nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/readable-stream /usr/lib/node_modules/readable-stream nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/lazystream /usr/lib/node_modules/lazystream nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/async /usr/lib/node_modules/async nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/tar-stream /usr/lib/node_modules/tar-stream nodejs-node-archiver.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C a streaming interface for archive generation nodejs-node-archiver.src: E: invalid-spec-name 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C a streaming interface for archive generation nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/lodash /usr/lib/node_modules/lodash nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/zip-stream /usr/lib/node_modules/zip-stream nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/glob /usr/lib/node_modules/glob nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/buffer-crc32 /usr/lib/node_modules/buffer-crc32 nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/readable-stream /usr/lib/node_modules/readable-stream nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/lazystream /usr/lib/node_modules/lazystream nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/async /usr/lib/node_modules/async nodejs-node-archiver.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/node-archiver/node_modules/tar-stream /usr/lib/node_modules/tar-stream 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Requires -------- nodejs-node-archiver (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(async) npm(buffer-crc32) npm(glob) npm(lazystream) npm(lodash) npm(readable-stream) npm(tar-stream) npm(zip-stream) Provides -------- nodejs-node-archiver: nodejs-node-archiver npm(archiver) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/archiverjs/node-archiver/archive/1e55f081f0ad96622990da016e7f1ea091143c16/node-archiver-1e55f081f0ad96622990da016e7f1ea091143c16.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 039700f2931e71254514549facbfccbc616016d5e5a7763404008777094cad71 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 039700f2931e71254514549facbfccbc616016d5e5a7763404008777094cad71 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1177550 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
I've messed up the names when switching from node to github source. correct nodejs name is archiver rpm package name should be nodejs-archiver github project name is node-archiver fixed it now. Not really sure about packaging stream-bench, it seems a bit dead, last commit from two years ago and hardly any downloads. Could we leave tests off for now? Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-archiver.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-archiver-0.14.4-2.fc22.src.rpm
PS 0.15 seems to be a pre-release
Seems fine now, APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-archiver Short Description: A streaming interface for archive generation Upstream URL: https://github.com/archiverjs/node-archiver Owners: piotrp Branches: f21 f22 el6 epel7
Git done (by process-git-requests).
nodejs-archiver-0.14.4-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-archiver-0.14.4-2.fc21
nodejs-archiver-0.14.4-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-archiver-0.14.4-2.fc22
nodejs-archiver-0.14.4-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
nodejs-archiver-0.14.4-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
nodejs-archiver-0.14.4-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.