Bug 968594 - Review Request: nodejs-console-dot-log - A console.log implementation that plays nice with large amounts of data
Review Request: nodejs-console-dot-log - A console.log implementation that pl...
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: T.C. Hollingsworth
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: nodejs-reviews 968607
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2013-05-29 18:40 EDT by Jamie Nguyen
Modified: 2013-07-04 16:03 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: nodejs-console-dot-log-0.1.3-2.el6
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-06-18 11:35:49 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tchollingsworth: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Jamie Nguyen 2013-05-29 18:40:08 EDT
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/nodejs-console-log.spec
SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/SRPMS/nodejs-console-log-0.1.3-1.fc19.src.rpm
Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux

A console.log implementation that plays nice with large amounts of data.
It keeps the node alive until the output has flushed to the screen.
Comment 1 T.C. Hollingsworth 2013-06-05 01:38:12 EDT
Hmm, this is the "console.log" module, but there's a "console-log" module too.  This might cause a name clash in the future that would probably be best to avoid.

Not sure how best to rename it though.  We could use an underscore, but it seems that needs special approval.  I've asked the packaging list for guidance here:
Comment 2 Stephen Gallagher 2013-06-05 08:13:10 EDT
I'd recommend that we probably want to name this package nodejs-consoledotlog (or console-dot-log), honestly. That would eliminate the confusion.
Comment 3 T.C. Hollingsworth 2013-06-05 20:23:37 EDT
Fine by me.  :-)

Package Review

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

===== Issues ====

[!]: Please rename the package as Stephen suggests.

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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.
        Situation explained in comment to satisfaction
[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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
        nodejs macros used OK
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[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.
        Done, as indicated in comment.  OK.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.

% npm -q view console.log version

[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

        OK, justified by the requirements of the MIT.

[-]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
        no tests, just a gist apparently
[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
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: nodejs-console-log-0.1.3-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
nodejs-console-log.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint nodejs-console-log
nodejs-console-log.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'


nodejs-console-log (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Dots are fine in virtual provides or else sonames wouldn't work so OK.

Source checksums
http://registry.npmjs.org/console.log/-/console.log-0.1.3.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 132ee9b5919bb512f88e21c9e19e79b6e2a4662a564beb147776a96385c3aff5
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 132ee9b5919bb512f88e21c9e19e79b6e2a4662a564beb147776a96385c3aff5


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (eaf16cd) last change: 2013-05-30
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-vanilla-x86_64
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b968594
Comment 4 Jamie Nguyen 2013-06-07 04:14:50 EDT
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/nodejs-console-dot-log.spec
SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/nodeunit/SRPMS/nodejs-console-dot-log-0.1.3-2.fc19.src.rpm

* Fri Jun 07 2013 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux@fedoraproject.org> - 0.1.3-2
- rename from nodejs-console-log to nodejs-console-dot-log, as the real npm
  registry name of this module is "console.log" and there is already another
  npm module called "console-log"

I think I prefer console-dot-log to consoledotlog, as it'll prevent confusion about the word boundaries.
Comment 5 T.C. Hollingsworth 2013-06-07 05:08:48 EDT
Sounds good to me.  Everything looks good now, APPROVED.
Comment 6 Jamie Nguyen 2013-06-07 16:48:25 EDT
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: nodejs-console-dot-log
Short Description: A console.log implementation that plays nice with large amounts of data
Owners: jamielinux patches
Branches: f18 f19 el6
Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-06-18 06:51:04 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2013-06-18 11:31:04 EDT
nodejs-console-dot-log-0.1.3-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2013-06-18 11:31:45 EDT
nodejs-console-dot-log-0.1.3-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2013-06-18 11:32:19 EDT
nodejs-console-dot-log-0.1.3-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.
Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2013-07-01 20:21:07 EDT
nodejs-console-dot-log-0.1.3-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2013-07-01 20:32:44 EDT
nodejs-console-dot-log-0.1.3-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2013-07-04 16:03:00 EDT
nodejs-console-dot-log-0.1.3-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

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