[Bug 1296302] Review Request: nodejs-jison - A parser generator with Bison's API

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jan 12 15:48:52 UTC 2016 

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1296302

Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora at gmail.com> changed:

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



--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora at gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
Note: License file README.md is marked as %doc as well as %license. Please
exclude it from %doc.  Otherwise, package is approved.


===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual 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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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).
[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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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 unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[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-jison-0.4.15-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-jison-0.4.15-1.fc24.src.rpm
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/cjson /usr/lib/node_modules/cjson
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/lex-parser
/usr/lib/node_modules/lex-parser
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/escodegen
/usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/jison-lex
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison-lex
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/nomnom /usr/lib/node_modules/nomnom
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/esprima /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/ebnf-parser
/usr/lib/node_modules/ebnf-parser
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/JSONSelect
/usr/lib/node_modules/JSONSelect
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jison
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/esprima /usr/lib/node_modules/esprima
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/JSONSelect
/usr/lib/node_modules/JSONSelect
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/nomnom /usr/lib/node_modules/nomnom
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/jison-lex
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison-lex
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/lex-parser
/usr/lib/node_modules/lex-parser
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/ebnf-parser
/usr/lib/node_modules/ebnf-parser
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/cjson /usr/lib/node_modules/cjson
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/lib/node_modules/jison/node_modules/escodegen
/usr/lib/node_modules/escodegen
nodejs-jison.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jison
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.



Requires
--------
nodejs-jison (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /usr/bin/env
    nodejs(engine)
    npm(JSONSelect)
    npm(cjson)
    npm(ebnf-parser)
    npm(escodegen)
    npm(esprima)
    npm(jison-lex)
    npm(lex-parser)
    npm(nomnom)



Provides
--------
nodejs-jison:
    nodejs-jison
    npm(jison)



Source checksums
----------------
https://registry.npmjs.org/jison/-/jison-0.4.15.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
ac84483ca2a573ed8c81719b3d07958ff466ba1911fbbe71da2b8380e3fabb54
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ac84483ca2a573ed8c81719b3d07958ff466ba1911fbbe71da2b8380e3fabb54


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1296302
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl,
Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

-- 
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

More information about the package-review mailing list