Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 974005
Review Request: nodejs-packaging - RPM Macros and Utilities for Node.js Packaging
Last modified: 2013-07-26 14:13:10 EDT
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node-core/nodejs-packaging.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node-core/nodejs-packaging-1-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5498547 FAS: patches Description: This package contains RPM macros and other utilities useful for packaging Node.js modules and applications in RPM-based distributions. Here's a nodejs that works with this (nodejs-devel < 0.9.9 will conflict): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5498536
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. 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 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 1 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: [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. [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. [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 $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-packaging-1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-packaging.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-packaging.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-packaging.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-packaging nodejs-packaging.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-packaging.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-packaging.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nodejs-packaging (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/python nodejs(engine) Provides -------- nodejs-packaging: nodejs-packaging Source checksums ---------------- https://fedorahosted.org/released/nodejs-packaging/nodejs-packaging-fedora-1.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 67131e024b4eb703bfad944a1611dcfc321719d4bc4486720472cafff90f740b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 67131e024b4eb703bfad944a1611dcfc321719d4bc4486720472cafff90f740b Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -r -n nodejs-packaging-1-1.fc19.src.rpm
I think 'rpm' should be explicitly Required. The packaging guidelines don't seem to list 'rpm' as one that can be ignored, but at the same time I can't imagine the dire state a Fedora system would be in if rpm was missing... I suppose it couldn't harm to add it anyway though, since the package is using /etc/rpm and /usr/lib/rpm directories. Otherwise, package approved!
I decided to make it require redhat-rpm-config, because things can be glitchy without that. It Requires rpm, solving that issue. Also, in nodejs-0.10.12-1 I moved ownership of /usr/share/node from nodejs-devel to nodejs so I could put the multiple version list file in there, instead of creating a directory just for this purpose. -- Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node-core/nodejs-packaging.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/node-core/nodejs-packaging-2-1.fc19.src.rpm * Fri Jun 21 2013 T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@gmail.com> - 2-1 - move multiple version list to /usr/share/node - bump nodejs Requires to 0.10.12 - add Requires: redhat-rpm-config
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-packaging Short Description: RPM Macros and Utilities for Node.js Packaging Owners: patches sgallagh mrunge Branches: f19 f18 el6 InitialCC: jamielinux humaton
Git done (by process-git-requests).
libuv-0.10.12-1.fc19,nodejs-packaging-3-1.fc19,nodejs-0.10.13-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libuv-0.10.12-1.fc19,nodejs-packaging-3-1.fc19,nodejs-0.10.13-1.fc19
libuv-0.10.12-1.fc18,nodejs-packaging-3-1.fc18,nodejs-0.10.13-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libuv-0.10.12-1.fc18,nodejs-packaging-3-1.fc18,nodejs-0.10.13-1.fc18
libuv-0.10.12-1.el6,nodejs-packaging-3-1.el6,nodejs-0.10.13-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libuv-0.10.12-1.el6,nodejs-packaging-3-1.el6,nodejs-0.10.13-1.el6
Package libuv-0.10.12-1.el6, nodejs-packaging-3-1.el6, nodejs-0.10.13-1.el6: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=epel-testing libuv-0.10.12-1.el6 nodejs-packaging-3-1.el6 nodejs-0.10.13-1.el6' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-10813/libuv-0.10.12-1.el6,nodejs-packaging-3-1.el6,nodejs-0.10.13-1.el6 then log in and leave karma (feedback).
libuv-0.10.12-1.fc18, nodejs-packaging-3-1.fc18, nodejs-0.10.13-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libuv-0.10.12-1.fc19, nodejs-packaging-3-1.fc19, nodejs-0.10.13-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
libuv-0.10.12-1.el6, nodejs-packaging-3-1.el6, nodejs-0.10.13-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.