Hide Forgot
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.fc23.src.rpm SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: A light, featureful and explicit option parsing library for node.js Fedora Account System Username: piotrp
ah fedora-review complained no spec url above.
This should be better: Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-dashdash.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
1) I see upstream is regularly releasing tarballs. So, use normal Source URL https://github.com/trentm/node-dashdash/archive/1.10.1.tar.gz 2) build failed and error is Error: Cannot find module 'assert-plus'
I've created the source url according to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services Is that incorrect?
I want to take the reference of this line "Git web-based hosting services provide a mechanism to create tarballs on demand, either from a specific commit revision, or from a specific tag. If the upstream does not create tarballs for releases, you can use this mechanism to produce them." According to it, I think if upstream releases tarballs (and there is nothing missing in the tarball like license or test files) then use those otherwise use commit/tag based source tarball. I see that upstream is releasing tarballs regularly -> https://github.com/trentm/node-dashdash/releases
Ok, I've updated as requested but I think it is confusing, I've had another review in which I was requested me to do it the other way around... see bug #1194927. Package now builds in mock.
Sorry for the confusion. But I really think if upstream released tarball is complete then use it directly. Review will follow in next comment.
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "CDDL", "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1291076-nodejs-dashdash/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 51200 bytes in 12 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: [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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-dashdash-1.10.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-dashdash.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) featureful -> feature nodejs-dashdash.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-dashdash.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US featureful -> feature nodejs-dashdash.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-dashdash.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-dashdash.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/dashdash/node_modules/assert-plus /usr/lib/node_modules/assert-plus nodejs-dashdash.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) featureful -> feature nodejs-dashdash.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-dashdash.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US featureful -> feature nodejs-dashdash.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-dashdash.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-dashdash.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/dashdash/node_modules/assert-plus /usr/lib/node_modules/assert-plus 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- nodejs-dashdash (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(assert-plus) Provides -------- nodejs-dashdash: nodejs-dashdash npm(dashdash) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/trentm/node-dashdash/archive/e95a66a095553ef045283b34d7615bf02f0dfaac.tar.gz#/dashdash-e95a66a.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7f2fce9fc9a10e3da081a82a4d54a7eb7de5a9e48786e2554a3f274960afb9e5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7f2fce9fc9a10e3da081a82a4d54a7eb7de5a9e48786e2554a3f274960afb9e5 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1291076 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 APPROVED.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-dashdash
nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-412f7b2fc8
nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-04da2c30bd
nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-cce60b7f6d
nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.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-dashdash' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-04da2c30bd
nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.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-dashdash' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-cce60b7f6d
nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.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-dashdash' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-412f7b2fc8
Built in rawhide, closing to unblock other review requests.
nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nodejs-dashdash-1.10.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.