https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968599 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jamielinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | |g Flags| |needinfo?(jamielinux@fedora | |project.org) --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== Please explain the source of the manpages, consider downloading whole repo for tests following the Github rule (or explain why not to) ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: There is bundled code for testing in Source1/test/3rdparty But it is not packaged to the binary package All test-related stuff is under Fedora approved licenses, so it is able to stay in SRPM [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). [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 51200 bytes in 8 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 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments Not sure, if you shouldn't apply Github rule for downlaoding tests http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github Where are the manpages from? [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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 arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-esprima-1.0.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm nodejs-esprima.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-esprima.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary esvalidate.js nodejs-esprima.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary esparse.js 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-esprima nodejs-esprima.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-esprima.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary esvalidate.js nodejs-esprima.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary esparse.js 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nodejs-esprima (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env nodejs(engine) Provides -------- nodejs-esprima: nodejs-esprima npm(esprima) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/esprima/-/esprima-1.0.3.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cd933a85928224fc8720f2ecea5e42f9271be1bbd7158f02112a89cf1c5b166c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cd933a85928224fc8720f2ecea5e42f9271be1bbd7158f02112a89cf1c5b166c Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (eaf16cd) last change: 2013-05-30 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 968599 $ rpm -qlvp ./nodejs-esprima-1.0.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 44 kvě 31 15:41 /usr/bin/esparse.js -> /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima/bin/esparse.js lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 47 kvě 31 15:41 /usr/bin/esvalidate.js -> /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima/bin/esvalidate.js drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 kvě 31 15:41 /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 kvě 31 15:41 /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima/bin -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 4248 kvě 17 16:48 /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima/bin/esparse.js -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6106 kvě 17 16:51 /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima/bin/esvalidate.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 124818 kvě 17 16:51 /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima/esprima.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 890 kvě 17 16:51 /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima/package.json drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 kvě 31 15:41 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 829 kvě 17 16:51 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3/ChangeLog -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1231 kvě 17 16:48 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3/LICENSE.BSD -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4358 kvě 17 16:51 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3/README.md drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 kvě 31 15:41 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3/doc -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 17790 kvě 17 16:51 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3/doc/index.html drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 kvě 31 15:41 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3/examples -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3096 kvě 17 16:48 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3/examples/detectnestedternary.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5139 kvě 17 16:48 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3/examples/findbooleantrap.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 684 kvě 17 16:48 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3/examples/tokendist.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4889 kvě 17 16:51 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-esprima-1.0.3/index.html -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 379 kvě 29 19:59 /usr/share/man/man1/esparse.1.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 253 kvě 29 19:59 /usr/share/man/man1/esvalidate.1.gz -- 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=yusDjow1i4&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review