Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-lru-queue/nodejs-lru-queue.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-lru-queue/nodejs-lru-queue-0.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: LRU queue Fedora Account System Username: jsmith
APPROVED We should try to get the tad test framework in... 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)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1292428-nodejs-lru-queue/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 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. [!]: %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-lru-queue-0.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-lru-queue-0.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-lru-queue.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-lru-queue.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/lru-queue/node_modules/es5-ext /usr/lib/node_modules/es5-ext 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-lru-queue.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-lru-queue.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/lru-queue/node_modules/es5-ext /usr/lib/node_modules/es5-ext 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- nodejs-lru-queue (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(es5-ext) Provides -------- nodejs-lru-queue: nodejs-lru-queue npm(lru-queue) Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/lru-queue/-/lru-queue-0.1.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : abd631f850778ac6df823cafc64f8351ab1476f34bb6040c5e8daffa1ebb038c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : abd631f850778ac6df823cafc64f8351ab1476f34bb6040c5e8daffa1ebb038c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -x CheckOwnDirs -b 1292428 Buildroot used: fedora-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
(In reply to Piotr Popieluch from comment #1) > APPROVED Thank you for the steady stream of reviews -- we're making great progress on getting the dependencies for npm ready, and we couldn't do it without your help. > We should try to get the tad test framework in... That's certainly my secondary goal -- I've got it (and all it's dependencies) built on my local machine and I'm working through the process of cleaning up the packages and submitting them -- many of the them are the same packages that we need for npm. (Also, many of them that depend on tad for tests are actually dependencies of tad itself.) My best guess is that we're more than 90% of the way towards having the tad test suite in Fedora -- but I'll keep pushing that last 10%.
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-lru-queue
built in rawhide+f24, closing.