Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891202 Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Eduardo Echeverria <echevemaster@xxxxxxxxx> --- Hi T.C. Issues: ======= - %clean is not needed - BuildRoot is not needed - cleaning of buildroot in %install is not needed - %defattr is not needed - tests should be run if possible In the same line as discussed in #891194, I follow the same criteria for the review (ie ignore el5 stuff, the installation of node modules in /usr/lib and the tests) I would take the Summary it as the provided by Debian: - Javascript least-recently-used cache object and the description: A cache object that deletes the least recently used items rpmlint output: nodejs-lru-cache.src: W: strange-permission nodejs-lru-cache.spec 0600L - Please change permissions nodejs-lru-cache.src: W: no-%build-section - Add the %%build section (even if empty). Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= ===== 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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 does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: 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. -I checked manually in the LICENSE file in this it is under MIT license [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (lru-cache-2.2.1.tgz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-lru-cache-2.2.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm nodejs-lru-cache-2.2.1-1.fc19.src.rpm nodejs-lru-cache.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-lru-cache.src: W: strange-permission nodejs-lru-cache.spec 0600L nodejs-lru-cache.src: W: no-%build-section 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-lru-cache nodejs-lru-cache.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nodejs-lru-cache-2.2.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) Provides -------- nodejs-lru-cache-2.2.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: nodejs-lru-cache = 2.2.1-1.fc19 npm(lru-cache) = 2.2.1 MD5-sum check ------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/lru-cache/-/lru-cache-2.2.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 70a44ccebb3963990257e632eede78e4a873814411675cbf27ee56b5fe349836 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 70a44ccebb3963990257e632eede78e4a873814411675cbf27ee56b5fe349836 -- 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=IvpWRCEbKh&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review