Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/buddycloud-server/nodejs-docco.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/buddycloud-server/SRPMS/nodejs-docco-0.4.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux Description: The Quick and Dirty Literate Programming Documentation Generator.
Include vendor/ directory. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/other/nodejs-docco.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/other/SRPMS/nodejs-docco-0.4.0-2.fc18.src.rpm
Add BSD to License. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/nodejs-docco.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/SRPMS/nodejs-docco-0.4.0-3.fc18.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. As you have already noticed vendor/showdown.js is bundled, so that will need to be resolved or an exception applied for. - Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines. The resources directory should be in %{_datadir}. - If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. As it is MIT a local copy of the license will be needed for now. - Issues from rpmlint: nodejs-docco.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary docco ===== 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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/912089-nodejs-docco/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 112640 bytes in 4 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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: [!]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: 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-docco-0.4.0-3.fc19.noarch.rpm nodejs-docco.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/commander /usr/lib/node_modules/commander nodejs-docco.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary docco 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-docco nodejs-docco.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/commander /usr/lib/node_modules/commander nodejs-docco.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary docco 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nodejs-docco (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env nodejs(engine) npm(commander) python-pygments Provides -------- nodejs-docco: nodejs-docco npm(docco) MD5-sum check ------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/docco/-/docco-0.4.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 48b11bc53c3a2ee85c350529eba99ccfa8912338901ec399559c74c005b7c8ea CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 48b11bc53c3a2ee85c350529eba99ccfa8912338901ec399559c74c005b7c8ea Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -x CheckNoNameConflict -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 912089
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/nodejs-docco.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/SRPMS/nodejs-docco-0.4.0-4.fc18.src.rpm I'll add a man page and figure out whether it's plausible to patch docco to support the upstream showdown. If not, I'll apply for an exception.
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/nodejs-docco.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/SRPMS/nodejs-docco-0.6.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Hooray! Upstream have switched from forked npm(showdown) to unmodified npm(marked) which I've now posted for review. * Tue Mar 12 2013 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux> - 0.6.0-1 - update to upstream release 0.6.0 - remove comments about bundled showdown.js as project has switched to marked - add a man page - improve %%description - remove /usr/share/docco/resources as we are including the compiled version - test suite removed by upstream so remove coffee-script, npm(console.log) and python-pygments from BuildRequires - add npm(marked) and npm(underscore) to BuildRequires
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Latest version is packaged. There is a 0.6.1 upstream release now. - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. The python-pygments is needed to run docco in %build so needs a BR. - Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. There are fonts included in the docs directory. - General issues. If docs is the documentation for docco shouldn't it be in %doc? Is resources really not needed? Isn't it intended as a default template for when you run docco on a file without using --template or -css switches? ===== 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 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]: 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 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. [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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 2 files. [!]: 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]: 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: [!]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. Note: Package contains font files [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [!]: 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]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-docco-0.6.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-docco.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/marked /usr/lib/node_modules/marked nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/commander /usr/lib/node_modules/commander nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/underscore /usr/lib/node_modules/underscore 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-docco nodejs-docco.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/marked /usr/lib/node_modules/marked nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/commander /usr/lib/node_modules/commander nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/underscore /usr/lib/node_modules/underscore 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nodejs-docco (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env nodejs(engine) npm(commander) npm(marked) npm(underscore) python-pygments Provides -------- nodejs-docco: nodejs-docco npm(docco) MD5-sum check ------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/docco/-/docco-0.6.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 21f100c635797b9d25dac330212fd0c2e23fef5f25367d16abac631dde62452d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 21f100c635797b9d25dac330212fd0c2e23fef5f25367d16abac631dde62452d Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -rn /home/tom/rpm/SRPMS/nodejs-docco-0.6.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/nodejs-docco.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/SRPMS/nodejs-docco-0.6.1-1.fc18.src.rpm > - Latest version is packaged. > > There is a 0.6.1 upstream release now. Updated. New dependency: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=921889 > - Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > > The python-pygments is needed to run docco in %build so needs a BR. Done. > - Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages. > > There are fonts included in the docs directory. I've chosen just to delete these webfonts. The css doesn't break without them, and I'm not sure there are actually any web fonts at all in Fedora at the moment: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/packaging/2012-December/008783.html > - General issues. > > If docs is the documentation for docco shouldn't it be in %doc? Done. > Is resources really not needed? Isn't it intended as a default > template for when you run docco on a file without using --template > or -css switches? Argh, that's my bad. Re-included resources, and also the docs themselves require the resources directory (so /usr/share/docco/resources is now symlinked to both docdir/nodejs-docco and nodejs_sitelib/docco).
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. I wonder if this one should be docco rather than nodejs-docco? It seems to me that it's primary purpose is to provide the docco tool rather than to provide a node library. ===== 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 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]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: 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]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 122880 bytes in 7 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: [-]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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]: 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-docco-0.6.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-docco.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/highlight.js /usr/lib/node_modules/highlight.js nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/marked /usr/lib/node_modules/marked nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/commander /usr/lib/node_modules/commander nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/underscore /usr/lib/node_modules/underscore 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-docco nodejs-docco.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/marked /usr/lib/node_modules/marked nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/commander /usr/lib/node_modules/commander nodejs-docco.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/docco/node_modules/underscore /usr/lib/node_modules/underscore 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nodejs-docco (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env nodejs(engine) npm(commander) npm(highlight.js) npm(marked) npm(underscore) python-pygments Provides -------- nodejs-docco: nodejs-docco npm(docco) MD5-sum check ------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/docco/-/docco-0.6.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 996f8df0db37d2bad29cf10bd40f2983ec6c554729ba34fb69f8bd4048b6e20f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 996f8df0db37d2bad29cf10bd40f2983ec6c554729ba34fb69f8bd4048b6e20f Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 912089
> - Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > > I wonder if this one should be docco rather than nodejs-docco? It > seems to me that it's primary purpose is to provide the docco tool > rather than to provide a node library. I think you have a good point there. Package renamed. Spec: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/docco.spec SRPM: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/SRPMS/docco-0.6.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
Looks good. Package approved.
Thanks for the thorough review on this one!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: docco Short Description: The Quick and Dirty Literate Programming Documentation Generator Owners: jamielinux Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
docco-0.6.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/docco-0.6.1-2.fc18
docco-0.6.1-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/docco-0.6.1-3.fc18
docco-0.6.1-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.