https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970803 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |needinfo?(tchollingsworth@g | |mail.com) --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== Issues ===== Add comment about the license to the spec. Tell me, this is also meant for EPEL5. If not, solve all [!] bellow. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. The source contains absolutely nothing about the license. There is WTFPL license in the repo, but please add comment about that to the spec. Also, be careful and add a link to the commit, where version was still 1.0.0, but license was already WTFPL. https://github.com/isaacs/inherits/blob/112807f2670160b6e3bafdf39e395c10ae7d0fac/LICENSE [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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. As above. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. This is for EPEL5, right? [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Again EPEL. [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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 [!]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed Again EPEL5. [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required Again EPEL5. [?]: 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. This is a legacy package. [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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. No tests from upstream. [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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-inherits1-1.0.0-9.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-inherits1.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-inherits1.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. All false positives. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-inherits1 nodejs-inherits1.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-inherits1.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' All false positives. Requires -------- nodejs-inherits1 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) Provides -------- nodejs-inherits1: nodejs-inherits1 npm(inherits) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/inherits/-/inherits-1.0.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2be196fa6bc6a0c65fecd737af457589ef88b22a95d5dc31aab01d92ace48186 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2be196fa6bc6a0c65fecd737af457589ef88b22a95d5dc31aab01d92ace48186 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (eaf16cd) last change: 2013-05-30 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -m fedora-devel-x86_64 -b 970803 $ rpm -qlvp ./nodejs-inherits1-1.0.0-9.fc20.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 čen 6 13:35 /usr/lib/node_modules/inherits@1 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 862 dub 7 2011 /usr/lib/node_modules/inherits@1/inherits.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 338 dub 7 2011 /usr/lib/node_modules/inherits@1/package.json drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 čen 6 13:35 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-inherits1-1.0.0 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1109 dub 7 2011 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-inherits1-1.0.0/README.md -- 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=EYpu8dxQqk&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review