https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968597 Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> --- For some reason, Fedora Review doesn't like this, but it build in regular mock just fine ===== 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. [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. [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. $ rpmlint ./nodejs-ejs-0.8.4-1.fc20.* nodejs-ejs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-ejs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-ejs.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-ejs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-ejs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. [-]: 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. [-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. $ rpm -qlvp ./nodejs-ejs-0.8.4-1.fc20.noarch.rpm drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 čen 7 23:49 /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 11372 říj 3 2012 /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs/ejs.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6141 říj 3 2012 /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs/ejs.min.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 39 říj 3 2012 /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs/index.js drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 čen 7 23:49 /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs/lib -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8292 kvě 8 18:35 /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs/lib/ejs.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3018 říj 3 2012 /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs/lib/filters.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 379 říj 3 2012 /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs/lib/utils.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 407 kvě 8 18:38 /usr/lib/node_modules/ejs/package.json drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 čen 7 23:49 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-ejs-0.8.4 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2525 kvě 8 18:39 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-ejs-0.8.4/History.md -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 5045 kvě 8 18:40 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-ejs-0.8.4/Readme.md drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 čen 7 23:49 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-ejs-0.8.4/examples -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 588 říj 3 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-ejs-0.8.4/examples/client.html -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 183 říj 29 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-ejs-0.8.4/examples/functions.ejs -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 433 říj 29 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-ejs-0.8.4/examples/functions.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 128 říj 3 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-ejs-0.8.4/examples/list.ejs -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 224 říj 3 2012 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-ejs-0.8.4/examples/list.js [-]: 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. $ sha256sum ejs-0.8.4.tgz $ rm ejs-0.8.4.tgz $ spectool -g nodejs-ejs.spec Getting http://registry.npmjs.org/ejs/-/ejs-0.8.4.tgz to ./ejs-0.8.4.tgz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 14745 100 14745 0 0 29935 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 47108 $ sha256sum ejs-0.8.4.tgz 58fe787dcc0e8dca98b359c38c5747f05babae1ec0e16999714325206cabfa3b ejs-0.8.4.tgz [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). $ rpm -q --requires -p nodejs-ejs-0.8.4-1.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs(engine) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 $ rpm -q --provides -p nodejs-ejs-0.8.4-1.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-ejs = 0.8.4-1.fc20 npm(ejs) = 0.8.4 [?]: 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. [?]: 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. [-]: 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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. I've used SRPM, not the .spec, didn't check if they match. Package is APPROVED. -- 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=zlDRktfT8k&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review