Bug 1291933 - Review Request: nodejs-mdurl - URL utilities for markdown-it
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-mdurl - URL utilities for markdown-it
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 1291938
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2015-12-15 22:26 UTC by Jared Smith
Modified: 2016-08-04 10:55 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2016-08-04 10:55:51 UTC
Type: ---
tom: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jared Smith 2015-12-15 22:26:55 UTC
Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-mdurl/nodejs-mdurl.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-mdurl/nodejs-mdurl-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: URL utilities for markdown-it
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2015-12-15 22:41:53 UTC
Package Review

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

===== 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". 13 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1291933
[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 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
[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
[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
[-]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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-mdurl-1.0.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
nodejs-mdurl.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-mdurl.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tests-1.0.1.tar.bz2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

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

nodejs-mdurl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://registry.npmjs.org/mdurl/-/mdurl-1.0.1.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c116abcf850f97ca9dc5e153c59350e8f89a6c881c99d57adf19680f9d451e9e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c116abcf850f97ca9dc5e153c59350e8f89a6c881c99d57adf19680f9d451e9e

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 1291933
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 2 Tom Hughes 2015-12-15 22:43:04 UTC
Only concern is that parse.js is a slightly modified chunk of code from Node itself, so I wonder if we should have some sort of bundling provide?

Comment 3 Jared Smith 2015-12-16 14:58:42 UTC
I've have done a thorough analysis of the parse.js code, but based on the README.md file, it seems that this is different enough from Node's 'url' function that this is probably closer to the concept of a forked copylib than it is a bundled library.

Comment 4 Jared Smith 2015-12-22 16:44:52 UTC
(In reply to Jared Smith from comment #3)
> I've have done a thorough analysis of the parse.js code

Sorry, that was a typo.  It should have read "I haven't done a thorough analysis".

That being said, I have now looked at the code (on both sides) quite a bit more, and I still think this is a much more serious fork of the code than just "slightly modified chunk of code".  

In order to move this package review forward, would you like me to get the FPC to make a decision on this?  I hesitate to simply add the "Provides: bundled(nodejs)" line to the package and call it good, because I think it just causes more confusion than it's worth -- but if you think that's the most appropriate course of action, I'll do that.

Comment 5 Tom Hughes 2015-12-22 17:56:08 UTC
Sorry, I think I missed that you had replied on this before...

I think https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/913addbff5481567262c387cef9594f809e4ef83/lib/url.js is roughly the version it was based on although as you say quite a bit has been cut out or changed.

It's not really a copylib, because that implies that upstream had an intention that it would be copied, it's really just a fork.

I agree that bundled(nodejs) is not very useful, but the current guidelines don't really offer any guidance on when something is different enough to become a fork rather than bundling :-( I myself wound up adding a probably not very helpful bundled(boost) to a package because it had two files from the upstream boost repo that aren't in the boost releases.

We've had similar problems in the past, mostly with assert.deepequal, which exists in about a zillion hacked about versions in the npm repository:


Obviously those were all resolved under the old bundling rules.

There was apparently some talk then about special rules for "fragments" like this but nothing ever came of it.

All those were granted exceptions, with no requirement to add a provide, so that seems like the logical conclusion here - just not sure if we should be getting FPC to approve that under the new rules...

Comment 6 Jared Smith 2015-12-22 19:03:54 UTC
Alright, I give.

SPEC URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-mdurl/nodejs-mdurl.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-mdurl/nodejs-mdurl-1.0.1-2.fc24.src.rpm

I've added the Provides: bundled(nodejs) line, along with an explanation of why it's there and a brief introduction.

Comment 7 Tom Hughes 2015-12-22 19:16:04 UTC
Fine. I tend to agre that it's probably a bit silly and the guidelines could maybe do with some tweaking.

Comment 8 Patrick Uiterwijk 2015-12-22 19:30:23 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-mdurl

Comment 9 Jared Smith 2016-08-04 10:55:51 UTC
In rawhide, closing bug

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