Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-base64-url/nodejs-base64-url.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-base64-url/nodejs-base64-url-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Base64 encode, decode, escape and unescape for URL applications Fedora Account System Username: jsmith
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: "ISC", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1278152-nodejs- base64-url/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: [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-base64-url-1.2.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-base64-url-1.2.1-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-base64-url.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unescape -> Netscape, escapee, escape nodejs-base64-url.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unescape -> Netscape, escapee, escape nodejs-base64-url.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-base64-url.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) unescape -> Netscape, escapee, escape nodejs-base64-url.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unescape -> Netscape, escapee, escape 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-base64-url.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- nodejs-base64-url (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs nodejs(engine) Provides -------- nodejs-base64-url: nodejs-base64-url npm(base64-url) Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/base64-url/-/base64-url-1.2.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 32380403a1f566c9fdc55e160f682260553032eb4c730f1918e9d8ae3fa982a3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 32380403a1f566c9fdc55e160f682260553032eb4c730f1918e9d8ae3fa982a3 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/joaquimserafim/base64-url/34f370344d147b328d2e0e97027b0fa1b5470c78/test.js : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f7e6f2a7950e1cc16f119a80e7d8209ba13fa5a15a895f0589d248b4b498db9e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f7e6f2a7950e1cc16f119a80e7d8209ba13fa5a15a895f0589d248b4b498db9e 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 1278152 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
Tests are being included in the built RPM. Also 1.2.1 is tagged now, so we should use those tests, and probably better to use the versioned URL for them: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/joaquimserafim/base64-url/v%{version}/test.js
Updated. Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-base64-url/nodejs-base64-url.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-base64-url/nodejs-base64-url-1.2.1-2.fc24.src.rpm
The comment about 1.2.1 not being tagged yet can be removed, but other than that it looks fine now, so package approved.
Any progress here?
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-base64-url
nodejs-base64-url-1.2.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2c20751943
nodejs-base64-url-1.2.1-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-ac036635fe
nodejs-base64-url-1.2.1-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dae06ead71
nodejs-base64-url-1.2.1-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-f3c9e87258
nodejs-base64-url-1.2.1-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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-base64-url' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-ac036635fe
nodejs-base64-url-1.2.1-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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-base64-url' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-f3c9e87258
nodejs-base64-url-1.2.1-2.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-base64-url' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-dae06ead71
nodejs-base64-url-1.2.1-2.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-base64-url' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2c20751943
Built in rawhide, closing to unblock other review requests.