Bug 1308653 - Review Request: nodejs-promises-aplus-tests - Compliance test suite for Promises/A+
Review Request: nodejs-promises-aplus-tests - Compliance test suite for Promi...
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Tom Hughes
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: nodejs-reviews 1308666
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2016-02-15 12:01 EST by Jared Smith
Modified: 2016-02-16 11:52 EST (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2016-02-16 11:52:22 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tom: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2016-02-15 14:15:54 EST
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: "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1308653-nodejs-promises-aplus-
[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 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
[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.
[-]: 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-promises-aplus-tests-2.1.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
nodejs-promises-aplus-tests.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-promises-aplus-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules/promises-aplus-tests/lib/cli.js 644 /usr/bin/env
nodejs-promises-aplus-tests.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/promises-aplus-tests/node_modules/sinon /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon
nodejs-promises-aplus-tests.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/promises-aplus-tests/node_modules/underscore /usr/lib/node_modules/underscore
nodejs-promises-aplus-tests.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/promises-aplus-tests/node_modules/mocha /usr/lib/node_modules/mocha
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-promises-aplus-tests.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-promises-aplus-tests.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/promises-aplus-tests/node_modules/mocha /usr/lib/node_modules/mocha
nodejs-promises-aplus-tests.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/promises-aplus-tests/node_modules/sinon /usr/lib/node_modules/sinon
nodejs-promises-aplus-tests.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules/promises-aplus-tests/lib/cli.js 644 /usr/bin/env
nodejs-promises-aplus-tests.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/promises-aplus-tests/node_modules/underscore /usr/lib/node_modules/underscore
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

nodejs-promises-aplus-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
https://registry.npmjs.org/promises-aplus-tests/-/promises-aplus-tests-2.1.1.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8c5e4f7942e9fc44e642ad4e2be541e2d02f43a201f5b2d0c76af75aff262a21
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8c5e4f7942e9fc44e642ad4e2be541e2d02f43a201f5b2d0c76af75aff262a21

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 1308653
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 2016-02-15 14:17:08 EST
Only issue is an rpmlint warning about cli.js not being executable - that is actually intended to be installed as the promises-aplus-tests commaned though if you only want the programmatic interface you could just leave it out.
Comment 3 Patrick Uiterwijk 2016-02-15 17:50:05 EST
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-max-timeout

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