Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/buddycloud-server/nodejs-prompt.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/buddycloud-server/SRPMS/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux Description: A beautiful command-line prompt for Node.js. Features include: - prompting for user input - validation and defaults - hiding of passwords
Jamie, This source have problem in install: Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.32 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.32 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.32 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/marcelo.barbosa/rpmbuild/SOURCES/reviews/911046-nodejs-prompt/results/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/marcelo.barbosa/rpmbuild/SOURCES/reviews/911046-nodejs-prompt/results/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch.rpm'] Error: Package: nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch (/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch) Requires: npm(winston) < 0.7 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem Error: Package: nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch (/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch) Requires: npm(winston) >= 0.6 Error: Package: nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch (/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch) Requires: npm(utile) < 0.2 Error: Package: nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch (/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18.noarch) Requires: npm(utile) >= 0.1 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Marcelo Barbosa
Jamie, More informations: Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/marcelo.barbosa/rpmbuild/SOURCES/reviews/911046-nodejs-prompt/srpm/nodejs-prompt.spec 2013-07-09 01:21:27.860508144 -0300 +++ /home/marcelo.barbosa/rpmbuild/SOURCES/reviews/911046-nodejs-prompt/srpm-unpacked/nodejs-prompt.spec 2013-07-09 01:21:28.226512095 -0300 @@ -13,9 +13,7 @@ URL: https://github.com/flatiron/prompt Source0: http://registry.npmjs.org/prompt/-/prompt-%{version}.tgz - BuildArch: noarch -ExclusiveArch: %{nodejs_arches} noarch -BuildRequires: nodejs-packaging +BuildRequires: nodejs-devel %if 0%{?enable_tests} @@ -52,5 +50,5 @@ %if 0%{?enable_tests} %check -%nodejs_symlink_deps --check +ln -sf %{nodejs_sitelib} . %{nodejs_sitelib}/vows/bin/vows --spec %endif Marcelo Barbosa
Thanks Marcelo. Sorry about the mismatch. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/buddycloud-server/nodejs-prompt.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/buddycloud-server/SRPMS/nodejs-prompt-0.2.11-1.fc19.src.rpm * Tue Jul 09 2013 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux> - 0.2.11-1 - update to upstream release 0.2.11 - make the versioned dependencies less specific
Jamie, No problem, we are humans :D I have one error about download this SRPM package: ERROR: 'Error 404 downloading http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/buddycloud-server/SRPMS/nodejs-prompt-0.2.11-1.fc19.src.rpm' (logs in /home/marcelo.barbosa/.cache/fedora-review.log) Not Found The requested URL /buddycloud-server/SRPMS/nodejs-prompt-0.2.11-1.fc19.src.rpm was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Please adjust and inform me, i'm avaliable for help you. Regards. Marcelo Barbosa
Oh damn. Looks like I'm still a human! The links above should now work (I hope), and I'm pretty sure they match too. If I get this wrong again, you can whack me on the head at the next conference :P
Jamie, No problem man, we are humans :D, about next conference we go drink some beers :D - Outputs for rpmlint are false positives. 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. [.]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [.]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [.]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 16 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). ===== 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. [x]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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-prompt-0.2.11-1.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt/node_modules/winston /usr/lib/node_modules/winston nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt/node_modules/utile /usr/lib/node_modules/utile nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt/node_modules/read /usr/lib/node_modules/read nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt/node_modules/pkginfo /usr/lib/node_modules/pkginfo nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt/node_modules/revalidator /usr/lib/node_modules/revalidator 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-prompt nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt/node_modules/winston /usr/lib/node_modules/winston nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt/node_modules/utile /usr/lib/node_modules/utile nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt/node_modules/read /usr/lib/node_modules/read nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt/node_modules/pkginfo /usr/lib/node_modules/pkginfo nodejs-prompt.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt/node_modules/revalidator /usr/lib/node_modules/revalidator 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nodejs-prompt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(pkginfo) npm(read) npm(revalidator) npm(utile) npm(winston) Provides -------- nodejs-prompt: nodejs-prompt npm(prompt) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/prompt/-/prompt-0.2.11.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d357080555caf4e8102ea9842401ff72a2ba9748c4da9ef65e22354ca63f24a8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d357080555caf4e8102ea9842401ff72a2ba9748c4da9ef65e22354ca63f24a8 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 911046 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 ---------------- PACKAGE APPROVED ---------------- Marcelo Barbosa (firemanxbr)
(In reply to Marcelo Barbosa from comment #6) > No problem man, we are humans :D, about next conference we go drink some > beers :D > Sounds good. I think I owe you a few drinks anyway for all the reviews :)
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-prompt Short Description: A beautiful command-line prompt for Node.js Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc19
nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.fc18
nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-1.el6
nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.fc19
nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.fc18
nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.el6
Package nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.fc18: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.fc18' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-12818/nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.fc18 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nodejs-prompt-0.2.9-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.