https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1420605 Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |panemade@xxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |panemade@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Suggestions: 1)As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js#Build_testing_in_.25check Add following in %check %{__nodejs} -e 'require("./")' 2) In %prep you can use following to silent the rpmlint wrong-script-interpreter error sed -i '1 s|#!/usr/bin/env node|#!/usr/bin/node|' bin/grunt-wrap Fix these before building package in koji ===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1420605-nodejs-grunt-wrap/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]: 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 %license. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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-wrap-0.3.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm nodejs-grunt-wrap-0.3.0-1.fc26.src.rpm nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/grunt-wrap /usr/bin/env node nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grunt-wrap nodejs-grunt-wrap.src: W: strange-permission dltests.sh 775 nodejs-grunt-wrap.src: W: no-%build-section nodejs-grunt-wrap.src: W: invalid-url Source2: tests-3894ad6ce5ea014b95fdf15eb8812c3640471147.tar.bz2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/bin/grunt-wrap /usr/bin/env node nodejs-grunt-wrap.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary grunt-wrap 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- nodejs-grunt-wrap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env nodejs(engine) nodejs-grunt Provides -------- nodejs-grunt-wrap: nodejs-grunt-wrap npm(grunt-wrap) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/grunt-wrap/-/grunt-wrap-0.3.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 814d3e48cdd464c126df9ef3a4fe63288bbc21c621c45859b9264c43a0e8bed6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 814d3e48cdd464c126df9ef3a4fe63288bbc21c621c45859b9264c43a0e8bed6 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/chrissrogers/grunt-wrap/3894ad6ce5ea014b95fdf15eb8812c3640471147/Gruntfile.js : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bf4e92b64d67b1e9040e10953835ca6b52f26f4a0788914c4909b4dc024823b5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bf4e92b64d67b1e9040e10953835ca6b52f26f4a0788914c4909b4dc024823b5 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1420605 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx