https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199284 Piotr Popieluch <piotr1212@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |piotr1212@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch <piotr1212@xxxxxxxxx> --- APPROVED, but you need to fix following issues before pushing to SCM: 1. nodejs-npm-install-checks.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause License should be "BSD", not "BSD-2-Clause" See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List for valid short license names. 2. [!]: Latest version is packaged. I have noticed that the latest version is 1.0.5, you should update to that version. 3. minor typo I think this line: tap test?*.js Should be: tap test/*.js This does not affect working of package though. 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1199284-nodejs-npm-install- checks/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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). [?]: 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. [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-npm-install-checks-1.0.4-5.fc23.noarch.rpm nodejs-npm-install-checks-1.0.4-5.fc23.src.rpm nodejs-npm-install-checks.noarch: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause nodejs-npm-install-checks.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-npm-install-checks.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/npm-install-checks/node_modules/semver /usr/lib/node_modules/semver nodejs-npm-install-checks.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/npm-install-checks/node_modules/npmlog /usr/lib/node_modules/npmlog nodejs-npm-install-checks.src: W: invalid-license BSD-2-Clause 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- nodejs-npm-install-checks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(npmlog) npm(semver) Provides -------- nodejs-npm-install-checks: nodejs-npm-install-checks npm(npm-install-checks) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/npm-install-checks/-/npm-install-checks-1.0.4.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : be11b8bce27bc3c79490a3de9b4dc84b29ea2d4dc7645e0586f4829cbdd5f369 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be11b8bce27bc3c79490a3de9b4dc84b29ea2d4dc7645e0586f4829cbdd5f369 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1199284 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 -- 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