[Bug 969931] Review Request: nodejs-better-assert - C-style assert() for Node.js
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jun 3 09:30:21 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=969931
Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux at fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jamielinux at fedoraproject.or
| |g
Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org |jamielinux at fedoraproject.or
| |g
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux at fedoraproject.org> ---
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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: 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 10240 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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:
[-]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[-]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %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]: 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]: 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).
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nodejs-better-assert-1.0.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
nodejs-better-assert.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-better-assert.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis,
ks, j
nodejs-better-assert.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-better-assert.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/better-assert/node_modules/callsite
/usr/lib/node_modules/callsite
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint nodejs-better-assert
nodejs-better-assert.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-better-assert.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis,
ks, j
nodejs-better-assert.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-better-assert.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/better-assert/node_modules/callsite
/usr/lib/node_modules/callsite
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
nodejs-better-assert (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
nodejs(engine)
npm(callsite)
Provides
--------
nodejs-better-assert:
nodejs-better-assert
npm(better-assert)
Source checksums
----------------
http://registry.npmjs.org/better-assert/-/better-assert-1.0.0.tgz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
ef8187c570e2a025c8c6555799d555be7c96d0ee6c3262f7e5545c05d80b7451
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ef8187c570e2a025c8c6555799d555be7c96d0ee6c3262f7e5545c05d80b7451
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -r -n
nodejs-better-assert-1.0.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
--
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=Vkjj7krMV9&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list