[Bug 1169124] Review Request: nodejs-domutils - Utilities for working with htmlparser2's dom

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169124

Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |panemade at gmail.com
           Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |panemade at gmail.com
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) <panemade at gmail.com> ---
Review:

+ Package built successful in mock (f22 x86_64)

+ rpmlint on generated rpms gave output
nodejs-domutils.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dom -> mod, dim, don
nodejs-domutils.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dom -> mod,
dim, don
nodejs-domutils.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-domutils.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/domutils/node_modules/domelementtype
/usr/lib/node_modules/domelementtype
nodejs-domutils.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dom -> mod, dim, don
nodejs-domutils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US dom -> mod, dim,
don
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.

+ Source verified with upstream as (sha256sum)
srpm tarball: d7c41dfdd698bcb0660b14804ace033dd93256c7112b394689d01843a582721b
upstream tarball: 
d7c41dfdd698bcb0660b14804ace033dd93256c7112b394689d01843a582721b

- License is "BSD" and not "MIT"

+ License is included in its own LICENSE file.

+ follows nodejs packaging guidelines.

Suggestions:
1) Group is optional and required only for EL5

2) Fix license tag

-- 
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