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
*** Bug 1098194 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1232645-nodejs-path-is- inside/licensecheck.txt [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). [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 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]: 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]: 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 files. [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: [!]: 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-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc23.src.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. Requires -------- nodejs-path-is-inside (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) Provides -------- nodejs-path-is-inside: nodejs-path-is-inside npm(path-is-inside) 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 Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
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 ;-)
Thanks for such a fast review. 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
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.
I somehow uploaded wrong spec file. Is it okay now?
That looks the same as before to me?
And now?
No, that still just does this: cp -pr package.json lib/path-is-inside.js \ %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/%{npm_name} Which will copy path-is-inside.js to the top level: %{nodejs_sitelib}/%{npm_name}/path-is-inside.js When it needs to be at: %{nodejs_sitelib}/%{npm_name}/lib/path-is-inside.js
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 \ %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/%{npm_name} cp -pr lib/path-is-inside.js \ %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/%{npm_name}/lib Or is this okay too? mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/%{npm_name} cp -pr package.json lib/ \ %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/%{npm_name}
Both those should work - the second is probably the most common way to do it in other node modules.
I thought it was like that in the original spec. Sources updated, I hope it's okay now.
That looks good now - package approved.
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
Git done (by process-git-requests).
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc22
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.el7
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc21
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository.
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
nodejs-path-is-inside-1.0.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.