https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177702 Gerard Ryan <gerard@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Gerard Ryan <gerard@xxxxxxx> --- Approved. Issues section below contains some things that can be improved. Thanks for packaging! Issues: ======= 1. URL field should use %{srcname} rather than %{name}, otherwise the URL is incorrect (see rpmlint section below). This can be changed when importing to package repo. 2. [!]: Latest version is packaged. A new version, 0.4.0 has been released since this review was started. If you don't need 0.3.0 explicitly, you should consider packaging 0.4.0. 3. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Check is conditionally present, but one of the test deps, npm(grunt-contrib-jshint) isn't provided by any package in the distribution. This is acceptable, but consider adding a comment above the %check section, documenting why the tests are disabled/can't be run. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/grdryn/1177702-nodejs-grunt-contrib- htmlmin/licensecheck.txt [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. Note: Test run failed [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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 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. ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. [!]: %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: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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-contrib-htmlmin-0.3.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin-0.3.0-1.fc21.src.rpm nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Minify -> Magnify nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Minify -> Magnify nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/gruntjs/nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin HTTP Error 404: Not Found nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-contrib-htmlmin/node_modules/pretty-bytes /usr/lib/node_modules/pretty-bytes nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-contrib-htmlmin/node_modules/chalk /usr/lib/node_modules/chalk nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-contrib-htmlmin/node_modules/html-minifier /usr/lib/node_modules/html-minifier nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Minify -> Magnify nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Minify -> Magnify nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/gruntjs/nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(chalk) npm(html-minifier) npm(pretty-bytes) Provides -------- nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin: nodejs-grunt-contrib-htmlmin npm(grunt-contrib-htmlmin) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/grunt-contrib-htmlmin/-/grunt-contrib-htmlmin-0.3.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4460956ad0fdfb222a745e120460107d48473195ea240ebd2783f243d1664c05 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4460956ad0fdfb222a745e120460107d48473195ea240ebd2783f243d1664c05 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1177702 Buildroot used: fedora-21-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 -- 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