Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-jade.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-jade-0.28.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux Description: Jade is a high performance template engine heavily influenced by Haml and implemented with JavaScript for node.
FAS: richardvj11 *Iam not a authorized package reviewer but an aspiring package reviewer. ----------------------- [root@localhost richardvj11]# cat /etc/fedora-release Fedora release 19 (Rawhide) [root@localhost richardvj11]# cat /etc/issue Fedora release 19 (Rawhide) Kernel \r on an \m (\l) ------------------------------- [richardvj11@localhost ~]$ fedora-review -b 911183 Processing bugzilla bug: 911183 Getting .spec and .srpm Urls from : 911183 --> SRPM url: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-jade-0.28.1-1.fc18.src.rpm --> Spec url: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-jade.spec Using review directory: /home/richardvj11/911183-nodejs-jade Downloading .spec and .srpm files Downloading (Source0): http://registry.npmjs.org/jade/-/jade-0.28.1.tgz No upstream for (Source1): tests-0.28.0.tar.bz2 No upstream for (Source10): dl-tests.sh Running checks and generate report ERROR: Exception(/home/richardvj11/911183-nodejs-jade/srpm/nodejs-jade-0.28.1-1.fc18.src.rpm) Config(fedora-18-x86_64) 0 minutes 5 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /home/richardvj11/911183-nodejs-jade/results ERROR: Command failed: WARNING: Probably non-rawhide buildroot used. Rawhide should be used for most package reviews Build failed rc = Build error(s) Error: 'Mock build failed.' (logs in ~/.cache/fedora-review.log) [richardvj11@localhost ~]$
Hi Richard, if you look at the bug information above you'll see this bug depends on bug #910119: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910119 If you want to try reviewing other Node.js packages, you'd best take a look at the Node.js packaging guidelines for Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js Also for future reference, it'd be more useful if you posted the relevant information from "logs in ~/.cache/fedora-review.log", though I already know the reason is because the package from bug #910119 isn't yet available.
Thanks for the attempt though :)
Hi Jamie, i am reading other Node .js pack guidelines.. Here is the log 02-15 21:32 root INFO Using review directory: /home/richardvj11/review/911183-nodejs-jade 02-15 21:32 root INFO Downloading .spec and .srpm files 02-15 21:32 root DEBUG Exception down the road... Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 194, in run self._do_run() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 185, in _do_run self.__do_report() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 81, in __do_report self.__run_checks(self.bug.spec_file, self.bug.srpm_file) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/review_helper.py", line 92, in __run_checks self.checks = Checks(spec, srpm) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/checks.py", line 286, in __init__ self.spec = SpecFile(spec_file) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/spec_file.py", line 63, in __init__ update_macros() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/spec_file.py", line 54, in update_macros expanded = Mock.rpm_eval(' '.join(macros)).split() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/FedoraReview/mock.py", line 211, in rpm_eval return check_output(cmd).decode('utf-8').strip() File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/subprocess.py", line 544, in check_output raise CalledProcessError(retcode, cmd, output=output) CalledProcessError: Command '['mock', '--no-cleanup-after', '--no-clean', '--resultdir=/home/richardvj11/review /911183-nodejs-jade/results', '--quiet', '--shell', 'rpm --eval \\"%rhel %fedora %_build_arch %_arch\\"']' retu rned non-zero exit status 90 02-15 21:32 root ERROR Exception down the road...(logs in /home/richardvj11/.cache/fedora-review.log ) [richardvj11@localhost review]$
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. The /usr/bin/jade executable conflicts with openjade. Checking: nodejs-jade-0.28.1-1.fc19.src.rpm nodejs-jade-0.28.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm nodejs-jade.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jade ===== 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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 does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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]: 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 using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (jade-0.28.1.tgz) Source1 (tests-0.28.0.tar.bz2) Source10 (dl-tests.sh) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== 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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-jade-0.28.1-1.fc19.src.rpm nodejs-jade-0.28.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm nodejs-jade.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-jade.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-jade.src: W: strange-permission dl-tests.sh 0755L nodejs-jade.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tests-0.28.0.tar.bz2 nodejs-jade.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-jade.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-jade.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-jade.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/jade/node_modules/mkdirp /usr/lib/node_modules/mkdirp nodejs-jade.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/jade/node_modules/commander /usr/lib/node_modules/commander nodejs-jade.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/jade/node_modules/coffee-script /usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script nodejs-jade.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jade 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-jade nodejs-jade.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-jade.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-jade.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-jade.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/jade/node_modules/mkdirp /usr/lib/node_modules/mkdirp nodejs-jade.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/jade/node_modules/commander /usr/lib/node_modules/commander nodejs-jade.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/jade/node_modules/coffee-script /usr/lib/node_modules/coffee-script nodejs-jade.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jade 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nodejs-jade-0.28.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(coffee-script) < 1.5 npm(coffee-script) >= 1.4.0 npm(commander) < 2 npm(commander) >= 1.0 npm(mkdirp) < 0.4 npm(mkdirp) >= 0.3 Provides -------- nodejs-jade-0.28.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: nodejs-jade = 0.28.1-1.fc19 npm(jade) = 0.28.1 MD5-sum check ------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/jade/-/jade-0.28.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8b8eaf162bcc7d112a70dd571ac8a08abfcbea59455162b32f44886c867f2b75 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b8eaf162bcc7d112a70dd571ac8a08abfcbea59455162b32f44886c867f2b75 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 911183
Remove /usr/bin/jade symlink. (I don't think users will expect jade to be available at /usr/bin/jade anyway). Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-jade.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-jade-0.28.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
Great. With that done I think we can say package approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-jade Short Description: Jade template engine for Node.js Owners: jamielinux Branches: f18 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
nodejs-jade-0.28.2-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-3912/nodejs-jade-0.28.2-1.fc18
nodejs-jade-0.28.2-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
nodejs-jade-0.28.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-jade-0.28.2-1.el6
nodejs-jade-0.28.2-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.