https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968598 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo? --- Comment #1 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= [!]: [MUST] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. I believe, it's BSD, not MIT, according to package.json, LICENSE.BSD and LICENSE.source-map ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Note: There is something in Source1/test/3rdparty, but it is not packaged [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 20480 bytes in 3 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: 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. Disabled by default [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]: 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. Installation errors ------------------- Could not install for not yet resolved dep. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-escodegen-0.0.22-1.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-escodegen.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-escodegen.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/node_modules/estraverse /usr/lib/node_modules/estraverse nodejs-escodegen.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/node_modules/esprima /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima nodejs-escodegen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary esgenerate.js nodejs-escodegen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary escodegen.js 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Seems OK. Requires -------- nodejs-escodegen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env nodejs(engine) npm(esprima) npm(estraverse) Provides -------- nodejs-escodegen: nodejs-escodegen npm(escodegen) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/escodegen/-/escodegen-0.0.22.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c4ff427f65df6c0b594cc7253a87a7b60ed36f743490eed42cd40179d1c12aca CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c4ff427f65df6c0b594cc7253a87a7b60ed36f743490eed42cd40179d1c12aca 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 968598 $ rpm -qlvp ./nodejs-escodegen-0.0.22-1.fc20.noarch.rpm lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 48 čen 7 12:23 /usr/bin/escodegen.js -> /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/bin/escodegen.js lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 49 čen 7 12:23 /usr/bin/esgenerate.js -> /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/bin/esgenerate.js drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 čen 7 12:23 /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 čen 7 12:23 /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/bin -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1829 led 31 09:01 /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/bin/escodegen.js -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1829 led 31 09:01 /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/bin/esgenerate.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 108758 dub 24 18:47 /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/escodegen.browser.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 82527 dub 24 10:56 /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/escodegen.js drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 čen 7 12:23 /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/node_modules lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 čen 7 12:23 /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/node_modules/esprima -> /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 32 čen 7 12:23 /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/node_modules/estraverse -> /usr/lib/node_modules/estraverse -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1385 čen 7 12:23 /usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen/package.json drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 čen 7 12:23 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-escodegen-0.0.22 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1231 led 31 09:01 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-escodegen-0.0.22/LICENSE.BSD -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1525 led 31 09:01 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-escodegen-0.0.22/LICENSE.source-map -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4207 led 31 09:01 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-escodegen-0.0.22/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=yqqkbdxUh0&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review