Bug 1673393 - Review Request: nodejs-antora-cli - The command line interface for Antora
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-antora-cli - The command line interface for Antora
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: FE-DEADREVIEW antora 1673400
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2019-02-07 12:35 UTC by Zuzana Svetlikova
Modified: 2020-08-10 00:58 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2020-08-10 00:58:47 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Zuzana Svetlikova 2019-02-07 12:35:11 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs-antora-cli/nodejs-antora-cli.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs-antora-cli/nodejs-antora-cli-2.0.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm
Description: The command line interface for Antora
Fedora Account System Username: zvetlik

Comment 1 Gergely Gombos 2019-02-13 02:48:47 UTC
Hi, I'll give you an unofficial review. First off, the SRPM is not the SRPM link, please correct it.

Comment 2 Zuzana Svetlikova 2019-03-04 12:57:03 UTC
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs-antora-cli/nodejs-antora-cli.spec
SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~zvetlik/nodejs-antora-cli/nodejs-antora-cli-2.0.0-2.fc29.src.rpm
Description: The command line interface for Antora
Fedora Account System Username: zvetlik

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-03-04 16:50:29 UTC
 - Shouldn't be commented out:

#%{nodejs_symlink_deps}


 - If you generate Source0 with Source1, Source0 shouldn't be a URL.

 - Have your script cleanup afterwards


You shouldn't include bundled node modules, you should unbundle the whole package.

Comment 4 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-03-04 20:39:21 UTC
For bundling: you should add a Provides: bundled(blah) = version-release for each bundled node modules.

Comment 5 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-03-04 21:42:06 UTC
I was told the bundled thingie are automated by nodejs-packaging.


 - Use

Source0:        antora-cli-%{version}.tgz
Source1:        antora-cli-tarball.sh

 - You need to take into account all the licenses of the modules you bundle:

*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
------------------------------------------------------
package/node_modules/sprintf-js/bower.json
package/node_modules/sprintf-js/package.json

*No copyright* Expat License
----------------------------
package/node_modules/minimist/LICENSE
package/node_modules/moment/README.md

Apache License (v2.0)
---------------------
package/node_modules/convict/LICENSE

BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License
---------------------------------
package/node_modules/esprima/LICENSE.BSD
package/node_modules/esprima/bin/esparse.js
package/node_modules/esprima/bin/esvalidate.js

BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License
---------------------------------------
package/node_modules/sprintf-js/LICENSE

Expat License
-------------
package/node_modules/argparse/LICENSE
package/node_modules/camelcase-keys/license
package/node_modules/camelcase/license
package/node_modules/commander/LICENSE
package/node_modules/convict/node_modules/json5/LICENSE.md
package/node_modules/decamelize/license
package/node_modules/depd/LICENSE
package/node_modules/js-yaml/LICENSE
package/node_modules/json5/LICENSE.md
package/node_modules/lodash.clonedeep/LICENSE
package/node_modules/lodash.clonedeep/index.js
package/node_modules/map-obj/license
package/node_modules/moment/LICENSE
package/node_modules/quick-lru/license
package/node_modules/validator/LICENSE
package/node_modules/validator/validator.js
package/node_modules/validator/validator.min.js

ISC License
-----------
package/node_modules/@iarna/toml/LICENSE
package/node_modules/yargs-parser/LICENSE.txt

Mozilla Public License (v2.0)
-----------------------------
package/README.md
package/node_modules/@antora/playbook-builder/README.md

Public domain
-------------
package/node_modules/deep-freeze/LICENSE
package/node_modules/deep-freeze/readme.markdown


 Add the to the License: field and add a comment explaining the license breakdown.

 - You should own %{nodejs_sitelib}/@%{npm_org}

%dir %{nodejs_sitelib}/@%{npm_org}

 - Test fails:

BUILDSTDERR: ++ /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/nodejs-antora-cli-2.0.0-2.fc31.x86_64//usr/bin/antora --version
BUILDSTDERR: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.EBuEQ7: line 32: /builddir/build/BUILDROOT/nodejs-antora-cli-2.0.0-2.fc31.x86_64//usr/bin/antora: No such file or directory
FAIL
+ [[ '' == 2.0.0 ]]
+ echo FAIL
+ exit 0

 It seems it's because the symlink point to an invalid location:

nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/antora ../lib/node_modules/antora/@cli/bin/antora

 It should be:

ln -sf ../lib/node_modules/@%{npm_org}/%{org_subpkg}/bin/antora %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/antora

 → Notice the @ placement

 - Remove the dot at the end of the summary:

nodejs-antora-cli.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C The command line interface for Antora.

 - Fix shebang → /usr/bin/node

nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora/cli/lib/cli.js /usr/bin/env node
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora/cli/lib/cli.js 644 /usr/bin/env node





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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Public domain", "*No copyright* Expat License", "Unknown or
     generated", "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "ISC License",
     "Apache License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License
     (v2.0)", "Expat License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License",
     "Mozilla Public License (v2.0)", "*No copyright* BSD 3-clause "New" or
     "Revised" License". 644 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/nodejs-antora-cli/review-
     nodejs-antora-cli/licensecheck.txt
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora
[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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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-antora-cli-2.0.0-2.fc31.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-antora-cli-2.0.0-2.fc31.src.rpm
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot C The command line interface for Antora.
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/antora ../lib/node_modules/antora/@cli/bin/antora
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora/cli/lib/cli.js /usr/bin/env node
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora/cli/lib/cli.js 644 /usr/bin/env node
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora/cli/node_modules/.bin
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora/cli/node_modules/.bin
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora/cli/node_modules/convict/node_modules/.bin
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora/cli/node_modules/convict/node_modules/.bin
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora/cli/node_modules/deep-freeze/.travis.yml
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora/cli/node_modules/minimist/.travis.yml
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/@antora/cli/node_modules/sprintf-js/.npmignore
nodejs-antora-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary antora
nodejs-antora-cli.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C The command line interface for Antora.
nodejs-antora-cli.src:10: E: hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib/node_modules/@%{npm_org}/%{org_subpkg}/.*$
nodejs-antora-cli.src:53: W: macro-in-comment %{nodejs_symlink_deps}
nodejs-antora-cli.src: W: invalid-url Source0: antora-cli-2.0.0.tgz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 14 warnings.

Comment 6 Package Review 2020-07-10 00:57:08 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the
NEEDINFO flag.

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

Comment 7 Package Review 2020-08-10 00:58:47 UTC
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.


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