Bug 1285049 - Review Request: nodejs-jsonselect - CSS-like selectors for JSON
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-jsonselect - CSS-like selectors for JSON
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
Depends On:
Blocks: nodejs-reviews
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2015-11-24 18:24 UTC by Jared Smith
Modified: 2016-08-04 10:44 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2016-08-04 10:44:27 UTC
Type: ---
tom: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jared Smith 2015-11-24 18:24:53 UTC
Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-JSONSelect/nodejs-JSONSelect.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-JSONSelect/nodejs-JSONSelect-0.4.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: CSS-like selectors for JSON
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2015-11-24 18:59:32 UTC
This has a BR on npm(test) which isn't packaged.

Comment 3 Tom Hughes 2015-11-24 20:11:22 UTC
Package Review

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

- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
  in the spec URL.
  Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/tom/1285049-nodejs-
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL

===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 118 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1285049
[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 20480 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
[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]: 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
[-]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[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).
[?]: 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-JSONSelect-0.4.0-4.fc24.noarch.rpm
nodejs-JSONSelect.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-JSONSelect.src: W: file-size-mismatch LICENSE = 1079, https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lloyd/JSONSelect/master/LICENSE = 752
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-JSONSelect.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

nodejs-JSONSelect (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://registry.npmjs.org/JSONSelect/-/JSONSelect-0.4.0.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2f31a8ad1f97f542b12dd81f1214ed7b3a433280997e6d96a1108fd11a00f616
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2f31a8ad1f97f542b12dd81f1214ed7b3a433280997e6d96a1108fd11a00f616
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/lloyd/JSONSelect/master/LICENSE :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 270dcb9f4bfb7c239711fe86f31892e8bd696f5904d9ce0b4995015106ea3fcc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b0feea50d25e556d9af475683e6028d8ca13af8a47340edf6b7afe1f5ea66a97
diff -r also reports differences

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 1285049
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 4 Tom Hughes 2015-11-24 20:15:03 UTC
So per packaging rules the name should be lower case. Yes I know that there is also a jsonselect module in the NPM registry, but according to the guidelines if we wanted to package them both that would be a name conflict (it explicitly mentions case).

Also rpmlint is warning about a mismatch with the license file.

Comment 5 Jared Smith 2015-11-25 14:35:35 UTC
Good catch on the case -- I saw that there was a conflicting module that was all lower case, so I blindly assumed I should make this one upper case, without looking at the guidelines.  I've fixed that (and the mismatched license file.)

Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-jsonselect/nodejs-jsonselect.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-jsonselect/nodejs-jsonselect-0.4.0-5.fc24.src.rpm

Comment 6 Tom Hughes 2015-11-25 14:43:46 UTC
Looks good now. Package approved.

Comment 7 Till Maas 2015-11-26 21:27:27 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-jsonselect

Comment 8 Jared Smith 2016-08-04 10:44:27 UTC
In rawhide, closing bug

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