https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977141 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|mr.marcelo.barbosa@xxxxxxxx |zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx |m | Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. MIT 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. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: 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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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. [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]: %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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-grunt-init-0.3.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm nodejs-grunt-init-0.3.1-1.fc21.src.rpm nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/colors /usr/lib/node_modules/colors nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/async /usr/lib/node_modules/async nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/grunt /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/lodash /usr/lib/node_modules/lodash nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/hooker /usr/lib/node_modules/hooker nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/semver /usr/lib/node_modules/semver nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/prompt /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grunt-init 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. OK. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-grunt-init nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/colors /usr/lib/node_modules/colors nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/async /usr/lib/node_modules/async nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/grunt /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/lodash /usr/lib/node_modules/lodash nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/hooker /usr/lib/node_modules/hooker nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/semver /usr/lib/node_modules/semver nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/prompt /usr/lib/node_modules/prompt nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grunt-init 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' OK. Requires -------- nodejs-grunt-init (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env nodejs(engine) npm(async) npm(colors) npm(grunt) npm(hooker) npm(lodash) npm(prompt) npm(semver) Provides -------- nodejs-grunt-init: nodejs-grunt-init npm(grunt-init) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/grunt-init/-/grunt-init-0.3.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6d7b128b943d4b873430f9519bf3b7c2121a21940c0f1103fece04e837d2690d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6d7b128b943d4b873430f9519bf3b7c2121a21940c0f1103fece04e837d2690d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 977141 -L nodejs-async/noarch -c -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Built with local dependencies: /home/zbyszek/fedora/nodejs-async/noarch/nodejs-async-0.2.10-1.fc21.noarch.rpm Everything seems kosher. Hopefully nodejs-async will get updated soon. Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review