https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249060 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #3 from Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Some minor issues, see below: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - This package either needs to depend on nodejs or it needs to own `%{nodejs_sitelib}` in %files. Otherwise, this package won't be installable. - The patch we're carrying needs to have a comment pointing to the upstream proposal. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/node_modules_20 [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 25076 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-undici-5.27.2-1.fc40.noarch.rpm nodejs-undici-5.27.2-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp_4oi8amu')] checks: 31, packages: 2 nodejs-undici.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-undici.spec: W: invalid-url Source2: undici-5.27.2-nm-dev.tgz nodejs-undici.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: undici-5.27.2-nm-prod.tgz nodejs-undici.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: undici-5.27.2-stripped.tar.gz nodejs-undici.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules_20/undici/node_modules/.bin nodejs-undici.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules_20/undici/node_modules/.bin nodejs-undici.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules_20/undici/node_modules/.bin/.bin nodejs-undici.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules_20/undici/node_modules_prod/.package-lock.json nodejs-undici.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules_20/undici/node_modules_prod/@fastify/busboy/deps/dicer/LICENSE /usr/lib/node_modules_20/undici/node_modules_prod/@fastify/busboy/LICENSE nodejs-undici.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules_20/undici/node_modules/.bin/.bin ../../node_modules_prod/.bin 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "nodejs-undici". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- nodejs-undici (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- nodejs-undici: bundled(llhttp) bundled(nodejs-@fastify/busboy) nodejs-undici npm(undici) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name nodejs-undici --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, fonts, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Haskell, Perl, Java, Python, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2249060 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202249060%23c3 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
