https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968601 T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jamielinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | |g Flags| |needinfo?(jamielinux@fedora | |project.org) --- Comment #1 from T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth@xxxxxxxxx> --- > # librarian doesn't appear to be a real module. joose doesn't list librarian > # as a dependency, and librarian doesn't have a package.json, though both > # modules 'require' each other. There is also already another module on the > # npm registry called librarian. To simplify things and reduce confusion, I'm > # going to treat librarian as part of joose itself rather than separating it > # into a subpackage. There are no words... http://picardfacepalm.com/updown.gif -- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Status: NEEDS WORK ===== Issues ==== [!]: This package Provides npm(sample-dist) where it shouldn't. This comes from librarian/test_data/package.json. I guess the regex in nodejs-packaging needs tightening, but would you mind filtering this out for now? See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:AutoProvidesAndRequiresFiltering ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. BSD in README.md => OK [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). nodejs macros used => OK [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. %{nodejs_arches} used => OK [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 522240 bytes in 129 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: [-]: 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. % npm -q view joose version 3.50.0 [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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 tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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-joose-3.50.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-joose-3.50.0-1.fc20.src.rpm nodejs-joose.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Joose/Joose The read operation timed out nodejs-joose.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-joose.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/joose/node_modules/optimist /usr/lib/node_modules/optimist nodejs-joose.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/joose/node_modules/paperboy /usr/lib/node_modules/paperboy nodejs-joose.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/joose/node_modules/detective /usr/lib/node_modules/detective nodejs-joose.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/joose/node_modules/temp /usr/lib/node_modules/temp nodejs-joose.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/Joose/Joose <urlopen error _ssl.c:489: The handshake operation timed out> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. invalid-url is false positive, something screwy with my network OK Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-joose nodejs-joose.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-joose.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/joose/node_modules/optimist /usr/lib/node_modules/optimist nodejs-joose.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/joose/node_modules/paperboy /usr/lib/node_modules/paperboy nodejs-joose.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/joose/node_modules/detective /usr/lib/node_modules/detective nodejs-joose.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/joose/node_modules/temp /usr/lib/node_modules/temp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' OK Requires -------- nodejs-joose (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(detective) npm(optimist) npm(paperboy) npm(temp) OK Provides -------- nodejs-joose: nodejs-joose npm(joose) npm(sample-dist) NOT OK => npm(sample-dist) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/joose/-/joose-3.50.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fcb94deb7858e7ba8b50758af7eebb5432feb24c114ba790a11c92f09a62763a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fcb94deb7858e7ba8b50758af7eebb5432feb24c114ba790a11c92f09a62763a Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (b80cd0f) last change: 2013-07-09 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-vanilla-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b968601 -- 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=qayEkXKj3R&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
