Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891221 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(tchollingsworth@g | |mail.com) --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- FIX: Summary from package.json doesn't seem very useful to me. Replace it with something more informative, like: "Prompting wizard for building files from specialized PromZard modules" TODO: Remove markdown syntax from Description. Links to other projects are also unnecessary. FIX: You have FIXME in License, but there is BSD in URL. I suppose you entered it to a bad row. Correct License and URL fileds. MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. nodejs-promzard.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C prompting wizardly nodejs-promzard.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US npm -> pm, rpm, ppm nodejs-promzard.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit nodejs-promzard.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplementation -> re implementation, re-implementation, implementation nodejs-promzard.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes nodejs-promzard.src: W: invalid-license FIXME nodejs-promzard.src: W: invalid-url URL BSD nodejs-promzard.src: W: no-%build-section nodejs-promzard.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C prompting wizardly nodejs-promzard.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US npm -> pm, rpm, ppm nodejs-promzard.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US init -> unit, int, nit nodejs-promzard.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US reimplementation -> re implementation, re-implementation, implementation nodejs-promzard.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes nodejs-promzard.noarch: W: invalid-license FIXME nodejs-promzard.noarch: W: invalid-url URL BSD nodejs-promzard.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. FIX: Add %build section (even if empty), it is needed (some tools might want to add something at the beginning or at the end of it) Despite the mess in License/URL no other issues. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Checked on project's GitHub: BSD. OK (despite the mess in License/URL) MUST: 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 must be included in %doc. OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. $ sha256sum ../SOURCES/promzard-0.2.0.tgz e9dcdf4084876c4b751f2f5939f149071495f0d23bf80a9ec4a73cd84080184b ../SOURCES/promzard-0.2.0.tgz $ wget -q http://registry.npmjs.org/promzard/-/promzard-0.2.0.tgz $ sha256sum promzard-0.2.0.tgz e9dcdf4084876c4b751f2f5939f149071495f0d23bf80a9ec4a73cd84080184b promzard-0.2.0.tgz OK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK, builds in mock MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. I suppose npm-init in example folder is just some simplified example version, right? MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. $ rpm -q -lv -p ../RPMS/noarch/nodejs-promzard-0.2.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 led 7 20:40 /usr/lib/node_modules/promzard -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 384 čec 24 10:13 /usr/lib/node_modules/promzard/package.json -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5528 čec 24 09:48 /usr/lib/node_modules/promzard/promzard.js drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 led 7 20:40 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-promzard-0.2.0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4474 čen 19 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-promzard-0.2.0/README.md drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 led 7 20:40 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-promzard-0.2.0/example -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 282 čen 17 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-promzard-0.2.0/example/index.js drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 led 7 20:40 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-promzard-0.2.0/example/npm-init -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 156 čen 17 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-promzard-0.2.0/example/npm-init/README.md -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6058 čen 17 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-promzard-0.2.0/example/npm-init/init-input.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1032 čen 17 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-promzard-0.2.0/example/npm-init/init.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 179 čen 17 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-promzard-0.2.0/example/npm-init/package.json -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1803 čen 17 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-promzard-0.2.0/example/substack-input.js OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. OK Other hints: TODO: Consider dropping %defattr(-,root,root,-) in %files, it is not needed. TODO: Remove the BuildRoot variable, it is not needed either. Please fix the FIX items and consider fixing TODOs. Resolution: NEEDSWORK. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ldZbGmBdFl&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review