[Bug 1199284] Review request: nodejs-npm-install-checks - Install checks for NPM

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]