Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=922485 --- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ==== Issues ==== [!]: This package removes files from the BUILD directory in %install. This breaks `rpmbuild --short-circuit`. Please perform such operations in %prep. ===== Things to Consider ==== [ ]: This package ships several executables without man pages. Consider adding man pages for these executables and submitting them upstream. Note that the nodejs-ronn package currently under review will allow you to write them in markdown, if you or upstream find that more convienient. ===== 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. [-]: %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. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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. 3-clause BSD in LICENSE, OK. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Node.js: [x]: Follows the Node.js Naming Guidelines [x]: BuildRequires: nodejs-devel [x]: Uses %nodejs_sitelib or %nodejs_sitearch where appropriate [x]: Uses tarball from the npm registry [x]: Installs only appropriate files in %{nodejs_sitelib} [-]: Dependency versions are patched as necessary [-]: Bundled modules removed in %prep ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (mbtiles-0.2.8.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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. Disabled due to missing deps, OK. [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. [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-mbtiles-0.2.8-1.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-mbtiles-0.2.8-1.fc20.src.rpm nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tilelive -> tile live, tile-live, elective nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tilelive -> tile live, tile-live, elective nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/mbtiles/node_modules/optimist /usr/lib/node_modules/optimist nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/mbtiles/node_modules/underscore /usr/lib/node_modules/underscore nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/mbtiles/node_modules/step /usr/lib/node_modules/step nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/mbtiles/node_modules/sphericalmercator /usr/lib/node_modules/sphericalmercator nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/mbtiles/node_modules/sqlite3 /usr/lib/node_modules/sqlite3 nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mbrekey nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mbcompact nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mbcheck nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mbpipe nodejs-mbtiles.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tilelive -> tile live, tile-live, elective nodejs-mbtiles.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tilelive -> tile live, tile-live, elective 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. OK, consider adding man pages Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-mbtiles nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) tilelive -> tile live, tile-live, elective nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tilelive -> tile live, tile-live, elective nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/mbtiles/node_modules/optimist /usr/lib/node_modules/optimist nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/mbtiles/node_modules/underscore /usr/lib/node_modules/underscore nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/mbtiles/node_modules/step /usr/lib/node_modules/step nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/mbtiles/node_modules/sphericalmercator /usr/lib/node_modules/sphericalmercator nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/mbtiles/node_modules/sqlite3 /usr/lib/node_modules/sqlite3 nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mbrekey nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mbcompact nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mbcheck nodejs-mbtiles.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mbpipe 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' OK, consider adding man pages Requires -------- nodejs-mbtiles-0.2.8-1.fc20.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env nodejs(engine) >= 0.6.0 npm(optimist) < 0.4 npm(optimist) >= 0.3.1 npm(sphericalmercator) < 1.1 npm(sphericalmercator) >= 1.0.1 npm(sqlite3) < 2.2 npm(sqlite3) >= 2.1.1 npm(step) < 0.1 npm(step) >= 0.0.5 npm(underscore) < 1.5 npm(underscore) >= 1.4.4 OK Provides -------- nodejs-mbtiles-0.2.8-1.fc20.noarch.rpm: nodejs-mbtiles = 0.2.8-1.fc20 npm(mbtiles) = 0.2.8 OK MD5-sum check ------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/mbtiles/-/mbtiles-0.2.8.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1e03638af09dea0389226a8929b7297d8d1d2cb2c00c24e78645afdbf8b6768 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1e03638af09dea0389226a8929b7297d8d1d2cb2c00c24e78645afdbf8b6768 OK Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (f4bc12d) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-vanilla-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b922485 -- 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=IL0kSNEGJ8&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review