Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/daxelrod-jowl-47/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04844006-jowl/jowl.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/daxelrod-jowl-47/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04844006-jowl/jowl-2.1.0-1.20220918174732552023.pr47.12.gceccec5.fc38.src.rpm COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/packit/daxelrod-jowl-47/build/4844006/ Description: Jowl is a command-line filter for JSON expressions that uses plain JavaScript with Lodash. It takes JSON on standard in, and writes pretty-printed JSON to standard out. Fedora Account System Username: daxelrod Hello! I am the upstream maintainer of Jowl, and I would like to maintain it in Fedora. While I am a member of the packagers group, I had to withdraw my only other review request for a different package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1886621 because further testing uncovered major problems with the stability of that package that I was unable to fix. (Jowl has a much more thorough test suite, and I do not anticipate the same sort of problems here.) Since I have not gotten all the way to the finish line with a Fedora package yet, I propose treating this as my first package and ask that it be sponsored. Neal Gopmpa has agreed to be the sponsor. Neal has also already done preliminary review in https://github.com/daxelrod/jowl/pull/47 , but more review is always good! I'd also welcome review from any Packit experts to confirm that I'm using Packit correctly. Thank you!
Taking this review and sponsoring the packager (again!).
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE-MIT is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 1112 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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. [x]: 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 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: 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: [x]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 jowl.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib jowl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jowl jowl.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-1 ['2.1.0-1.20220918174732552023.pr47.12.gceccec5.fc38', '2.1.0-1.20220918174732552023.pr47.12.gceccec5'] jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/lib/.eslintrc.js jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules/.bin jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/.package-lock.json jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/color-name/.eslintrc.json jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/color-name/.npmignore jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.dont-break jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.jshintrc jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.npmignore jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.npmrc jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.travis.yml jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/jowl.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/bin/jowl jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/supports-color/license /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/ansi-styles/license:/usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/chalk/license:/usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/has-flag/license jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/each.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/each.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/eachRight.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/eachRight.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/entries.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/entries.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/entriesIn.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/entriesIn.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/extend.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/extend.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/extendWith.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/extendWith.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/first.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/first.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/assocPath.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/assoc.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/where.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/conforms.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/dissocPath.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/dissoc.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/whereEq.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/matches.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/property.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/path.js:/usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/prop.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/propEq.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/pathEq.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/propOr.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/pathOr.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/props.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/paths.js jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/valueOf.js /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/toJSON.js:/usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/value.js jowl.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules/.bin ../node_modules_prod/.bin 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 32 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/daxelrod/jowl/archive/v2.1.0/jowl-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a63cfb0a5f737887da47fb1bf9251b63355268734ccbaa5a1ae008ce7b6c99de CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 562df6cf0dc2abf946f419cdd7255fc326d00602d58137b14e956d197089514e diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- jowl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/node nodejs Provides -------- jowl: bundled(nodejs-ansi-styles) bundled(nodejs-chalk) bundled(nodejs-color-convert) bundled(nodejs-color-name) bundled(nodejs-commander) bundled(nodejs-console.json) bundled(nodejs-escape-string-regexp) bundled(nodejs-has-flag) bundled(nodejs-json-colorizer) bundled(nodejs-lodash) bundled(nodejs-lodash.get) bundled(nodejs-supports-color) jowl npm(jowl) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2127737 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Ocaml, R, Perl, Python, fonts, Haskell, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > > Issues: > ======= > - 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. > Note: License file LICENSE-MIT is not marked as %license > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text I'm pretty sure this is a misfire from the vendored node modules. > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > Here's the diff report: Only in /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/srpm-unpacked/jowl-2.1.0.tar.gz-extract/jowl-2.1.0: dist Only in /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/srpm-unpacked/jowl-2.1.0.tar.gz-extract/jowl-2.1.0: .packit.yaml This is probably because you haven't merged your Packit PR and made a release with it yet. > > ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT > License", "*No copyright* [generated file]". 1112 files have unknown > license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/licensecheck.txt > [-]: 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. > [x]: 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 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. > [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]: 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: > [x]: 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). > [x]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > Note: gpgverify is not used. > [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 > ------- > Cannot parse rpmlint output: > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > ============================ rpmlint session starts > ============================ > rpmlint: 2.2.0 > configuration: > /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml > /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml > checks: 32, packages: 1 > > jowl.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > jowl.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jowl > jowl.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-1 > ['2.1.0-1.20220918174732552023.pr47.12.gceccec5.fc38', > '2.1.0-1.20220918174732552023.pr47.12.gceccec5'] > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/lib/.eslintrc.js > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules/.bin > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/.package-lock.json > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/color-name/.eslintrc.json > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/color-name/.npmignore > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.dont-break > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.jshintrc > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.npmignore > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.npmrc > jowl.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/console.json/.travis.yml Meh. > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/jowl.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/bin/jowl > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/supports-color/license > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/ansi-styles/license:/usr/lib/ > node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/chalk/license:/usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/ > node_modules_prod/has-flag/license > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/each.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/each.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/eachRight.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/eachRight.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/entries.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/entries.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/entriesIn.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/entriesIn.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/extend.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/extend.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/extendWith.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/extendWith.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/first.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/first.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/assocPath.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/assoc.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/where.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/conforms.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/dissocPath.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/dissoc.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/whereEq.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/matches.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/property.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/path.js:/usr/lib/ > node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/prop.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/propEq.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/pathEq.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/propOr.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/pathOr.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/props.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/paths.js > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/valueOf.js > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/toJSON.js:/usr/lib/ > node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/value.js To fix this, add the following: BuildRequires: fdupes and add "%fdupes %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/%{name}" at the end of the %install section. > jowl.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules/.bin ../node_modules_prod/.bin Uhhh? > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 32 warnings, 0 badness; has > taken 0.3 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://github.com/daxelrod/jowl/archive/v2.1.0/jowl-2.1.0.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > a63cfb0a5f737887da47fb1bf9251b63355268734ccbaa5a1ae008ce7b6c99de > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > 562df6cf0dc2abf946f419cdd7255fc326d00602d58137b14e956d197089514e > diff -r also reports differences > See earlier. > > Requires > -------- > jowl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > /usr/bin/node > nodejs > > > > Provides > -------- > jowl: > bundled(nodejs-ansi-styles) > bundled(nodejs-chalk) > bundled(nodejs-color-convert) > bundled(nodejs-color-name) > bundled(nodejs-commander) > bundled(nodejs-console.json) > bundled(nodejs-escape-string-regexp) > bundled(nodejs-has-flag) > bundled(nodejs-json-colorizer) > bundled(nodejs-lodash) > bundled(nodejs-lodash.get) > bundled(nodejs-supports-color) > jowl > npm(jowl) > > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2127737 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api > Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Java, C/C++, Ocaml, R, Perl, Python, fonts, > Haskell, PHP > Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thank you for the review! Please see updated files: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/daxelrod-jowl-47/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04844930-jowl/jowl.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/packit/daxelrod-jowl-47/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/04844930-jowl/jowl-2.1.0-1.20220918210948584429.pr47.14.g1638749.fc38.src.rpm COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/packit/daxelrod-jowl-47/build/4844930/ (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #3) > (In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #2) > > > > Issues: > > ======= > > - 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. > > Note: License file LICENSE-MIT is not marked as %license > > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > > guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text > > I'm pretty sure this is a misfire from the vendored node modules. Agree that this is a misfire. Spec includes %license LICENSE %{name}-%{version}-bundled-licenses.txt where LICENSE contains the text of theMIT license, and all prod dependencies' bundled licenses are also MIT. Do let me know if you need me to do anything to work around this. > > > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > > in the spec URL. > > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > > /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/diff.txt > > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ > > > > Here's the diff report: > > Only in > /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/srpm-unpacked/jowl-2.1.0.tar.gz-extract/jowl-2.1.0: > dist > Only in > /home/ngompa/2127737-jowl/srpm-unpacked/jowl-2.1.0.tar.gz-extract/jowl-2.1.0: > .packit.yaml > > This is probably because you haven't merged your Packit PR and made a > release with it yet. Yes, exactly. I believe this is a bootstrapping problem where I need a tagged release with all files identical before this check can pass. After first creating this package, that will be my workflow anyway; dist-git will get updated after I cut a release upstream. For now, I'll solve this by addressing all other issues, and then cutting a new release, which should fix this one. > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/jowl.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/bin/jowl > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/supports-color/license > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/ansi-styles/license:/usr/lib/ > > node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/chalk/license:/usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/ > > node_modules_prod/has-flag/license > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/each.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/each.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/eachRight.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/eachRight.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/entries.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/entries.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/entriesIn.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/entriesIn.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/extend.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/extend.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/extendWith.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/extendWith.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/first.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/first.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/assocPath.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/assoc.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/where.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/conforms.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/dissocPath.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/dissoc.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/whereEq.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/matches.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/property.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/path.js:/usr/lib/ > > node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/prop.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/propEq.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/pathEq.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/propOr.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/pathOr.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/props.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/fp/paths.js > > jowl.noarch: W: files-duplicate > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/valueOf.js > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/toJSON.js:/usr/lib/ > > node_modules/jowl/node_modules_prod/lodash/value.js > > To fix this, add the following: > > BuildRequires: fdupes > > and add "%fdupes %{buildroot}%{nodejs_sitelib}/%{name}" at the end of the > %install section. Done. > > jowl.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink > > /usr/lib/node_modules/jowl/node_modules/.bin ../node_modules_prod/.bin > > Uhhh? Good catch. This was caused by me copying the prep section from tape, whose prod node modules tarball has a .bin directory; but mine doesn't becuase none of Jowl's prod dependencies provide executables. Now fixed.
At this point, things look good to me. PACKAGE APPROVED.
Awesome, thank you! Requested repo: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47624 And branches: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47625 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47626 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/47627
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jowl
Thank you! Imported into dist-git https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jowl/c/86074ed076c3186e6a04dd2ccb0a0cdfb2c7eef2?branch=rawhide and built for Rawhide https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=2065916 My understanding is that this is all I need to do for Rawhide. Are there any restrictions or additional testing I need to do to submit for other Fedora releases? I know that Fedora 37 is currently in Beta, so I don't know if there are restrictions on adding new packages to it right now. Nothing depends upon this package, so the impact should be low, in any case.
FEDORA-2022-ac09f55706 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ac09f55706
FEDORA-2022-305dbd0b01 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-305dbd0b01
FEDORA-2022-bab930316f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bab930316f
FEDORA-2022-ac09f55706 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-bab930316f has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-305dbd0b01 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.