Spec URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/nodejs-es6-promise.spec SRPM URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/nodejs-es6-promise-3.0.2-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: A lightweight library that provides tools for organizing asynchronous code. Fedora Account System Username: tdawson
Needed for dependency of nodejs-mongodb 2.0.39+
Just a couple of quick comments before I do the formal review: * You should call the "%nodejs_symlink_deps" macro in the %install section * In the %files section, the LICENSE file should go in %license. To be backwards compatible with EL6, I'd do someting like this: %files %{!?_licensedir:%global license %doc} %doc CHANGELOG.md README.md %license LICENSE %{nodejs_sitelib}/%{npm_name} * You should call the test suite, if there is one. See https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-deeper/nodejs-deeper.spec as an example of how I extract the tests from the upstream GitHub repo, as the npm tarballs typically don't have the tests included.
Spec URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/nodejs-es6-promise.spec SRPM URL: https://tdawson.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/nodejs-es6-promise-3.0.2-2.fc24.src.rpm - Added "%nodejs_symlink_deps" macro to the %install section - Switched LICENSE from %doc to %license -- Thanks for the tip about making it compatible with EL6 - Added the test suite -- I was not able to get the test suite to run due to dependencies. --- nodejs-ember-cli has a naming conflict with ember the game. Plus it's not a typical straight forward npm install. --- It's dependency list is crazy long too. -- When I manually added the dependencies, I still could not get it to run. The ember-cli stuff had instructions on where to put links and stuff to fix the problems, but I really wasn't comfortable putting that into an rpm, when we don't even have the dependencies in yet. -- Disabled the tests for now.
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. [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. [-]: 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 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). [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 [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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: 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]: 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: [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-es6-promise-3.0.2-2.fc23.noarch.rpm nodejs-es6-promise-3.0.2-2.fc23.src.rpm nodejs-es6-promise.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polyfill -> poly fill, poly-fill, polyvinyl nodejs-es6-promise.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsvp -> RSVP nodejs-es6-promise.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-es6-promise.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-es6-promise.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US polyfill -> poly fill, poly-fill, polyvinyl nodejs-es6-promise.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rsvp -> RSVP nodejs-es6-promise.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-es6-promise.src:19: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 10, tab: line 19) nodejs-es6-promise.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tests-3.0.2.tar.bz2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-es6-promise.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- nodejs-es6-promise (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) Provides -------- nodejs-es6-promise: nodejs-es6-promise npm(es6-promise) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/es6-promise/-/es6-promise-3.0.2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3f831c23c1c6f336a04f335fceda71814af44afa22b168e4848bf0267bec8d39 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f831c23c1c6f336a04f335fceda71814af44afa22b168e4848bf0267bec8d39 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1264985 Buildroot used: fedora-23-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
The only minor issue is a mix of tabs and spaces in the spec file, but I won't let that hold up approval. Package is approved!
nodejs-es6-promise-3.0.2-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-2a6a67d5cf
nodejs-es6-promise-3.0.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6d536f9616
nodejs-es6-promise-3.0.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-es6-promise' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6d536f9616
nodejs-es6-promise-3.0.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-es6-promise' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-2a6a67d5cf
nodejs-es6-promise-3.0.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nodejs-es6-promise-3.0.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.