Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/marked.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/SRPMS/marked-0.2.8-1.fc18.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux Description: marked is a full-featured markdown compiler that can parse huge chunks of markdown without having to worry about caching the compiled output or blocking for an unnecessarily long time. marked is extremely fast and frequently outperforms similar markdown parsers. marked is very concise and still implements all markdown features, as well as GitHub Flavored Markdown features. marked more or less passes the official markdown test suite in its entirety. This is important because a surprising number of markdown compilers cannot pass more than a few tests.
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - %check is present and all tests pass. There appear to be four test failures, but failure of those tests is not actually produce a non-zero exit status so rpmbuild does not abort. ===== 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). [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 10240 bytes in 2 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 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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 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: marked-0.2.8-1.fc19.noarch.rpm marked.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j marked.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers marked.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint marked marked.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j marked.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers marked.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- marked (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) Provides -------- marked: marked npm(marked) MD5-sum check ------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/marked/-/marked-0.2.8.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 910a6303adfa55574ac205e786d1cf670babaab65b13932bbd1085d86d0747df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 910a6303adfa55574ac205e786d1cf670babaab65b13932bbd1085d86d0747df 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 920447
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/marked.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/jasmine-node/SRPMS/marked-0.2.8-2.fc18.src.rpm > - %check is present and all tests pass. > > There appear to be four test failures, but failure of those tests is > not actually produce a non-zero exit status so rpmbuild does not abort. I dug around a bit and turns out 1 of the failures is "meant" to fail, one of the failures is known to fail but not yet fixed, and the other two "unknown" tests I'm not sure about. Comments added to the spec: # gfm_break test will always fail due to author's choice not to include gfm # line breaks: https://github.com/chjj/marked/issues/49 # gfm_code_hr_list test is known to fail but the author has not yet arrived # at a satisfactory solution: https://github.com/chjj/marked/pull/118 # def_blocks and double_link tests also fail and author has been queried # about whether these are meant to fail or not: # https://github.com/chjj/marked/issues/136 I've tried building the latest revision instead and the 2 "unknown" tests still fail. I'm really not familiar enough with marked to make a comment on whether it will cause problems for users.
This is only SHOULD anyway, so we don't need to hold anything up for it and you can consider this approved. Ideally upstream would remove "expected fail" tests, or else have the test framework recognise that failing is expected. Then again the test framework doesn't seem to indicate whether it has passed/failed in this case anyway...
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: marked Short Description: A markdown parser for Node.js built for speed Owners: jamielinux Branches: f19 f18 el6 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
marked-0.2.8-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/marked-0.2.8-2.fc18
marked-0.2.8-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Upstream have replied and said that all 4 tests that are failing are actually known and expected to fail :)
marked-0.2.8-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.