[Bug 911180] New: Review Request: nodejs-expect-js - Behaviour-driven development (BDD) style assertions for Node.js and the browser
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Bug ID: 911180 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-expect-js - Behaviour-driven development (BDD) style assertions for Node.js and the browser Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: jamielinux@fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-expect.js.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-expect-js-0.2.0-1.fc18... Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux
Description: Behaviour-driven development (BDD) style assertions for Node.js and the browser.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- Amend typo in the summary.
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-expect.js.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-expect-js-0.2.0-2.fc18...
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |956806 (nodejs-reviews)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
--- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-expect-js.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-expect-js-0.2.0-3.fc18...
Fix name of spec file
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tom@compton.nu Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tom@compton.nu Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu ---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== Issues =====
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
expect.js has two functions copied from node core:
- i taken from the util module - eql taken from the assert module
===== 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. [!]: 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 [-]: 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: 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. [-]: 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 2 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: [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. [?]: 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]: 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]: 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-expect-js-0.2.0-3.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-expect-js.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-expect-js nodejs-expect-js.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- nodejs-expect-js (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine)
Provides -------- nodejs-expect-js: nodejs-expect-js npm(expect.js)
Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/expect.js/-/expect.js-0.2.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 24c8ededf990485f6101cbf698729c7533472c21d5104066297ec2f6aae46ad5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 24c8ededf990485f6101cbf698729c7533472c21d5104066297ec2f6aae46ad5
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 911180
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
--- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- Well spotted! Bundling exception ticket opened:
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/297
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
--- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-expect-dot-js.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-4....
* Thu Jun 20 2013 Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org - 0.2.0-4 - rename from nodejs-expect-js to nodejs-expect-dot-js - add %%check, including patches to fix failing tests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |nodejs-expect-js - |nodejs-expect-dot-js - |Behaviour-driven |Behavior-driven development |development (BDD) style |(BDD) style assertions for |assertions for Node.js and |Node.js and the browser |the browser |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Bundling exception is now approved. There a are a few updates need to reflect the latest packaging guidelines (ExclusiveArch, nodejs-packaging and %nodejs_symlink_deps --check) but if that is done then this is good to go.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
--- Comment #7 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/nodejs-expect-dot-js.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-5....
* Thu Jul 11 2013 Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org - 0.2.0-5 - add ExclusiveArch macro - use "nodejs_symlink_deps --check"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-expect-dot-js Short Description: Behavior-driven development (BDD) style assertions for Node.js and the browser Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-5.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-5.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-5.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-5.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-5.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-07-17 17:30:44
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0- | |5.fc18
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-5.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0- |nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0- |5.fc18 |5.fc19
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-5.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911180
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0- |nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0- |5.fc19 |5.el6
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-expect-dot-js-0.2.0-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla