[Bug 968603] Review Request: nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended - Cross-platform (browser/NodeJS), non-blocking, handling of dependencies
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Aug 18 16:20:21 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=968603
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
There is a copy of Depended.mmd file in lib that duplicates what is in
doc so it should be dropped from lib I think.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
It's actually LGPLv3 not GPLv3. It's odd that README.md says it is
BSD and INSTALL and LICENSE say LGPLv3 though... All the source files
which mention a license (not all of them) seem to say BSD.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
See above...
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
I haven't managed to get the tests to run, even after installing the
test-run npm locally. It just complains about Harness not having a
configure method.
===== 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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/tom/968603-nodejs-joosex-namespace-
depended/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 235520 bytes in 35 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 %doc.
[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
[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).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[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.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: 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-joosex-namespace-depended-0.18.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/joosex-namespace-depended/node_modules/joosex-simplerequest
/usr/lib/node_modules/joosex-simplerequest
nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/joosex-namespace-depended/node_modules/joose
/usr/lib/node_modules/joose
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended
nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/joosex-namespace-depended/node_modules/joosex-simplerequest
/usr/lib/node_modules/joosex-simplerequest
nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/joosex-namespace-depended/node_modules/joose
/usr/lib/node_modules/joose
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
nodejs(engine)
npm(joose)
npm(joosex-simplerequest)
Provides
--------
nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended:
nodejs-joosex-namespace-depended
npm(joosex-namespace-depended)
Source checksums
----------------
http://registry.npmjs.org/joosex-namespace-depended/-/joosex-namespace-depended-0.18.0.tgz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
d6fb5f0de6f60e2fae2083e809df2d5cfc0b8e876ee17525a7155654e48de525
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
d6fb5f0de6f60e2fae2083e809df2d5cfc0b8e876ee17525a7155654e48de525
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 968603
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4Vmlk5eIJG&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list