Bug 1232645 - Review Request: nodejs-path-is-inside - Tests whether one path is inside another path
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-path-is-inside - Tests whether one path is inside anot...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom Hughes
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
: 1098194 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
Blocks: nodejs-reviews 1221551
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2015-06-17 08:42 UTC by Zuzana Svetlikova
Modified: 2015-07-08 17:16 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.el7
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2015-06-29 23:58:06 UTC
Type: ---
tom: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-06-17 08:42:02 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-path-is-inside/nodejs-path-is-inside.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs/nodejs-path-is-inside/nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: Tests whether one path is inside another path
Fedora Account System Username: zvetlik

Comment 1 Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-06-17 08:42:38 UTC
*** Bug 1098194 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Tom Hughes 2015-06-17 17:53:59 UTC
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/tom/1232645-nodejs-path-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).
[?]: 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 =====

[!]: 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-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
nodejs-path-is-inside.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-path-is-inside.src:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 9)
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

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

nodejs-path-is-inside (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://github.com/domenic/path-is-inside/archive/f5f9f436cd209df82463abdcc9b47d88379622c8/path-is-inside-f5f9f436cd209df82463abdcc9b47d88379622c8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b9b58433ba94ede1e58e2b0c5ad2fe06ebe74c0095bfba04745e006b678986fb
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9b58433ba94ede1e58e2b0c5ad2fe06ebe74c0095bfba04745e006b678986fb

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1232645
Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby

Comment 3 Tom Hughes 2015-06-17 17:55:15 UTC
There's an rpmlint warning:

nodejs-path-is-inside.src:14: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 14, tab: line 9)

Other than that, just one small problem... You haven't actuallu included lib/path-is-inside.js in the package you generate ;-)

Comment 5 Tom Hughes 2015-06-17 21:17:44 UTC
That's not quite right - that installs path-is-inside.js in the top level.

You either need to create the lib dir in the target directory first and then copy to it, or just copy the whole lib directory in the install line.

Comment 6 Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-06-17 23:37:55 UTC
I somehow uploaded wrong spec file. Is it okay now?

Comment 7 Tom Hughes 2015-06-17 23:42:12 UTC
That looks the same as before to me?

Comment 8 Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-06-18 00:00:41 UTC
And now?

Comment 9 Tom Hughes 2015-06-18 08:08:14 UTC
No, that still just does this:

  cp -pr package.json lib/path-is-inside.js \

Which will copy path-is-inside.js to the top level:


When it needs to be at:


Comment 10 Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-06-18 09:58:42 UTC
So it should be like this?

mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/%{npm_name}

mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/%{npm_name}/lib

cp -pr package.json \
cp -pr lib/path-is-inside.js \

Or is this okay too?

mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/%{npm_name}

cp -pr package.json lib/ \

Comment 11 Tom Hughes 2015-06-18 10:00:15 UTC
Both those should work - the second is probably the most common way to do it in other node modules.

Comment 12 Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-06-18 10:17:43 UTC
I thought it was like that in the original spec.

Sources updated, I hope it's okay now.

Comment 13 Tom Hughes 2015-06-18 10:18:59 UTC
That looks good now - package approved.

Comment 14 Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-06-18 10:27:35 UTC
I believe the fedora-review flag should be set to +.

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: nodejs-path-is-inside
Short Description: Tests whether one path is inside another path
Upstream URL: https://github.com/domenic/path-is-inside
Owners: zvetlik
Branches: f21 f22 el6 epel7

Comment 15 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-06-18 15:31:09 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2015-06-19 14:41:21 UTC
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2015-06-19 14:47:32 UTC
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2015-06-19 14:53:37 UTC
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2015-06-20 21:12:21 UTC
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2015-06-29 23:58:06 UTC
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2015-06-30 00:02:49 UTC
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2015-07-08 17:16:07 UTC
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.

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