Bug 1223549 - Review Request: nodejs-is-object - Checks whether a value is an object
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-is-object - Checks whether a value is an object
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Zuzana Svetlikova
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: nodejs-reviews 1223550
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2015-05-20 20:36 UTC by Tom Hughes
Modified: 2015-06-06 00:05 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: nodejs-is-object-1.0.1-1.fc22
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2015-06-06 00:05:43 UTC
Type: Bug
zsvetlik: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom Hughes 2015-05-20 20:36:17 UTC
Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-is-object.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-is-object-1.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: tomh

Checks whether a value is an object.

Comment 1 Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-05-23 18:24:09 UTC
Doesn't build in mock. 
Maybe try putting tests in conditional along with devDependencies.
Also nodejs-tape has different version, so use fixdep macro.

Comment 2 Tom Hughes 2015-05-23 23:17:36 UTC
It builds OK for me in mock, in F21 F22 and Rawhide. What's the error you are seeing?

Note that the tape version won't validated at all as nodejs-symlink-deps doesn't actually check versions (except for multi-version modules, to figure out which one to use) so it will just link in the one we have which works fine.

Comment 3 Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-05-25 14:39:06 UTC
Seems like fedora-review has some issues in F22.
Looks fine, although I'd rather have all the devDependencies listed in spec file.

Package Review

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

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/kasicka/fedrev/1223549-nodejs-is-
[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
[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.
[-]: 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 1 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
[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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.
[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]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

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

[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.

Checking: nodejs-is-object-1.0.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
nodejs-is-object.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
nodejs-is-object.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

nodejs-is-object (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
http://registry.npmjs.org/is-object/-/is-object-1.0.1.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 50675d09b265aaa84062a14a3f19bc8cd70b08a433d1cadb5d29f1102e84fee3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50675d09b265aaa84062a14a3f19bc8cd70b08a433d1cadb5d29f1102e84fee3

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1223549
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

Comment 4 Tom Hughes 2015-05-25 14:45:48 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: nodejs-is-object
Short Description: Checks whether a value is an object
Upstream URL: https://github.com/ljharb/is-object
Owners: tomh
Branches: f20 f21 f22

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-05-25 22:59:37 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2015-05-25 23:21:30 UTC
nodejs-is-object-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2015-05-27 16:22:07 UTC
nodejs-is-object-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2015-06-06 00:05:43 UTC
nodejs-is-object-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.