Bug 919689 - Review Request: nodejs-jshashes - A fast and independent hashing library for Node.js
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-jshashes - A fast and independent hashing library for ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
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:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-03-09 14:53 UTC by Tom Hughes
Modified: 2020-05-18 14:01 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-03-10 19:11:04 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tom Hughes 2013-03-09 14:53:04 UTC
Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-jshashes.spec
SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: tomh

Description:
jsHashes is a pure JavaScript implementation of the most extended hash
algorithms. Its goal is to provide an independent, fast and easy
solution for hash algorithms both for client-side and server-side
JavaScript environments. The code is fully compatible with the
ECMAScript language specification and was tested in all major browsers
(client-side) and node.js (server-side).

Comment 1 Jamie Nguyen 2013-03-09 22:17:41 UTC
Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======

[!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.

Various wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding warnings.


===== 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
[-]: 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).
[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 15 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]: 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]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/hmac.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/uppercase.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/custom.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/LICENSE
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/hexadecimal.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/benchmark.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/README.md
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/base64.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/node_modules/jshashes/bin/hashes.js /urs/bin/env
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules/jshashes/bin/hashes.js 0644L /urs/bin/env
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint nodejs-jshashes
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/hmac.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/uppercase.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/custom.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/LICENSE
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/hexadecimal.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/benchmark.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/README.md
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1/examples/server/base64.js
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/lib/node_modules/jshashes/bin/hashes.js /urs/bin/env
nodejs-jshashes.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules/jshashes/bin/hashes.js 0644L /urs/bin/env
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 11 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
nodejs-jshashes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nodejs(engine)



Provides
--------
nodejs-jshashes:
    nodejs-jshashes
    npm(jshashes)



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://registry.npmjs.org/jshashes/-/jshashes-1.0.1.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a576a675f2fb2d1eee665d9c408894cb7a12fc726c3210c032d0b4b9453d4e04
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a576a675f2fb2d1eee665d9c408894cb7a12fc726c3210c032d0b4b9453d4e04


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29
Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n nodejs-jshashes-1.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm

Comment 3 Jamie Nguyen 2013-03-10 14:48:33 UTC
Great.

I assume this needs an exception? Like a few other of the node packages going through review, it appears to be another case of forked/adapted code rather than "bundling".

Comment 4 Tom Hughes 2013-03-10 15:20:22 UTC
I've opened https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/263 to request an exception.

Comment 5 Tom Hughes 2013-03-10 19:11:04 UTC
It transpires that this modules is not in fact needed for nodejs-oauth, and is unlikely to ever be needed on Fedora as node is built with openssl and hence has a builtin crypto module that can compute hashes.

So I am going to close this review request and the associated FPC ticket.


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