https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197265 Gerard Ryan <gerard@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |gerard@xxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |gerard@xxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Gerard Ryan <gerard@xxxxxxx> --- Approved. Thanks for packaging! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). URL and Source0 could use %{srcname} - not a huge deal, just something to consider. - [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: tests disabled with acceptable comment - not an issue ===== 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/grdryn/1197265-nodejs-grunt-contrib- requirejs/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. [!]: 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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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. ===== 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. [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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: tests disabled with acceptable comment [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. [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-requirejs-0.4.4-1.fc21.noarch.rpm nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs-0.4.4-1.fc21.src.rpm nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-contrib-requirejs/node_modules/requirejs /usr/lib/node_modules/requirejs nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(requirejs) Provides -------- nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs: nodejs-grunt-contrib-requirejs npm(grunt-contrib-requirejs) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gruntjs/grunt-contrib-requirejs/archive/v0.4.4/grunt-contrib-requirejs-0.4.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8d96cefef74bd186cd1ba7ad01831ef899b11ab7b3e7a51e873a0a26a87a356e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d96cefef74bd186cd1ba7ad01831ef899b11ab7b3e7a51e873a0a26a87a356e Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1197265 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