[Bug 977141] Review Request: nodejs-grunt-init - Generate project scaffolding from a template
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Oct 7 16:04:02 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977141
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek at in.waw.pl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zbyszek at in.waw.pl
--- Comment #3 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek at in.waw.pl> ---
I'm doing this review, because it's blocking jquery, which is blocking ipython
:)
>>> After adding BuildRequires: nodejs-grunt <<<
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
- 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.
Note: Cannot find LICENSE-Apache-2.0 in rpm(s)
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
===== 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.
I see MIT everywhere. I don't know why fedora-review complains about the file
with Apache license.
[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.
[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]: 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.
[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.
(nodejs style)
[-]: 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.
Modulo /usr/bin/env.
[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]: 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]: 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:
[-]: 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).
Requires:/usr/bin/env should go away.
[x]: 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]: %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.
[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-grunt-init-0.2.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/colors
/usr/lib/node_modules/colors
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/grunt /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/hooker
/usr/lib/node_modules/hooker
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/semver
/usr/lib/node_modules/semver
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/prompt
/usr/lib/node_modules/prompt
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
OK.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint nodejs-grunt-init
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/colors
/usr/lib/node_modules/colors
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/grunt /usr/lib/node_modules/grunt
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/hooker
/usr/lib/node_modules/hooker
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/semver
/usr/lib/node_modules/semver
nodejs-grunt-init.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/grunt-init/node_modules/prompt
/usr/lib/node_modules/prompt
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
OK.
Requires
--------
nodejs-grunt-init (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/usr/bin/env
nodejs(engine)
npm(colors)
npm(grunt)
npm(hooker)
npm(prompt)
npm(semver)
Provides
--------
nodejs-grunt-init:
nodejs-grunt-init
npm(grunt-init)
Source checksums
----------------
http://registry.npmjs.org/grunt-init/-/grunt-init-0.2.1.tgz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
dc5bb4052d5da7d9430081f61793e548d7dc45070df4b155151958b268e089db
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
dc5bb4052d5da7d9430081f61793e548d7dc45070df4b155151958b268e089db
Issues
------
Please sed /usr/bin/env out.
Please add something to the %description that tells people unfamiliar with
nodejs what this package does.
I think the package is good to go when those minor issues are fixed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list