Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/discord-irc/discord-irc.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/discord-irc/discord-irc-2.6.1-1.fc28.src.rpm Description: Connects Discord and IRC channels by sending messages back and forth. Fedora Account System Username: tc01 I wrote a very simple wrapper script that is installed to /usr/bin to run this software, as well as a systemd service file. Both are included in the SRPM. I also copied out an example configuration file from the upstream project's README and opted to put it into /etc/discord-irc/. The systemd service file reads this configuration file by default.
This has several un-packaged dependencies: * discord.js (nodejs-discord-js), which in turn had five total unpackaged deps of its own. * irc-formatting, which had two total unpackaged deps. * irc-upd, which had one unpackaged dep. * check-env, which thankfully had no unpackaged deps. The net result is that there are twelve other reviews that need to be done before this one. I've made those reviews block this one.
You forgot the SystemD bits: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets?rd=Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd %{?systemd_requires} BuildRequires: systemd [...] %post %systemd_post discord-irc.service %preun %systemd_preun discord-irc.service %postun %systemd_postun_with_restart discord-irc.service - Remove the shebang: discord-irc.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/dist/cli.js /usr/bin/env node discord-irc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/dist/cli.js 644 /usr/bin/env node - Own this dir: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/discord-irc Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - systemd_post is invoked in %post, systemd_preun in %preun, and systemd_postun in %postun for Systemd service files. Note: Systemd service file(s) in discord-irc See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Scriptlets#Scriptlets ===== 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". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/discord-irc/review-discord- irc/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /etc/discord-irc [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. [x]: 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: discord-irc-2.6.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm discord-irc-2.6.1-1.fc30.src.rpm discord-irc.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/dist/cli.js /usr/bin/env node discord-irc.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/dist/cli.js 644 /usr/bin/env node discord-irc.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/node_modules/check-env /usr/lib/node_modules/check-env discord-irc.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/node_modules/commander /usr/lib/node_modules/commander discord-irc.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/node_modules/discord.js /usr/lib/node_modules/discord.js discord-irc.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/node_modules/irc-colors /usr/lib/node_modules/irc-colors discord-irc.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/node_modules/irc-formatting /usr/lib/node_modules/irc-formatting discord-irc.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/node_modules/irc-upd /usr/lib/node_modules/irc-upd discord-irc.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/node_modules/lodash /usr/lib/node_modules/lodash discord-irc.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/node_modules/simple-markdown /usr/lib/node_modules/simple-markdown discord-irc.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/node_modules/strip-json-comments /usr/lib/node_modules/strip-json-comments discord-irc.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/discord-irc/node_modules/winston /usr/lib/node_modules/winston discord-irc.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary discord-irc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings.
Hey, thanks for diving through this pile of node packages. Much appreciated! Let me know if I can review something in return for you. You are right that I forgot the systemd snippets-- for some reason I thought they'd been replaced by file trigger magic. Whoops. Once I import and build the other packages I'll fix this (and the ownership issue) and upload a new spec.
Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/discord-irc/discord-irc.spec SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/nodejs/discord-irc/discord-irc-2.6.1-2.fc28.src.rpm - Add missing systemd scriplets. - Own the entire /etc/discord-irc/ directory as config(noreplace). - Strip shbang from dist/cli.js in the module install directory.
Package approved.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/discord-irc
Awesome, thanks again!
discord-irc-2.6.1-2.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-08dffd2fd7
discord-irc-2.6.1-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-08dffd2fd7
discord-irc-2.6.1-2.fc29 has been pushed to the Fedora 29 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.