Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
Bug ID: 894665 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-deep-equal - Node's assert.deepEqual algorithm Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: tchollingsworth@gmail.com
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-deep-equal.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4863788 FAS username: patches
Node's `assert.deepEqual()` algorithm implemented as a standalone module.
This package is part of the tap stack used to test many Node.js modules.
Please use nodejs-0.6.5-9 or later when building or using this package.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |894724
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |misc@zarb.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |misc@zarb.org Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer misc@zarb.org --- Doesn't build, the spec requires tap
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
--- Comment #2 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- Fixed.
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-deep-equal.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4876468
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jamielinux@fedoraproject.or | |g Assignee|misc@zarb.org |jamielinux@fedoraproject.or | |g
--- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- I've reassigned this review to myself. Hope that's OK misc!
Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= [!]: 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. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShor...
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [ ]: 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [ ]: 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. [!]: 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. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [ ]: Package is not relocatable. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (deep-equal-0.0.0.tgz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18.src.rpm nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm nodejs-deep-equal.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal nodejs-deep-equal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-deep-equal nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deepEqual -> deep Equal, deep-equal, quadrupedal nodejs-deep-equal.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
nodejs(engine)
Provides -------- nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18.noarch.rpm:
nodejs-deep-equal = 0.0.0-2.fc18 npm(deep-equal) = 0.0.0
MD5-sum check ------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/deep-equal/-/deep-equal-0.0.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6a5666d4bfa5d2786a9f86ede2eaa8252f783edb9d78e69cba645f7cb6e153b8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6a5666d4bfa5d2786a9f86ede2eaa8252f783edb9d78e69cba645f7cb6e153b8
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n ./nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- Please inform upstream that they need to ship a LICENSE file. Otherwise approved!
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
--- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- Oops, wrong file copy and pasted as some [x]s are missing. Pasted again below. (Review remains approved.)
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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: 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. [!]: 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 using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [!]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (deep-equal-0.0.0.tgz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-deep-equal Short Description: Node's assert.deepEqual algorithm Owners: patches Branches: f18 el6 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4-1.fc18,nodejs-buffer-equal-0.0.0-1.fc18,nodejs-charm-0.1.0-1.fc18,nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18,nodejs-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc18,nodejs-source-map-0.1.8-3.fc18,nodejs-traverse-0.6.3-2.fc18,nodejs-wordwrap-0.0.2-2.fc18,nodejs-yamlish-0.0.5-1.fc18,uglify-js-2.2.4-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4-1.fc18,nodejs-...
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |911059
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-buffer-equal-0.0.0-1.fc18, nodejs-charm-0.1.0-1.fc18, nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18, nodejs-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc18, nodejs-source-map-0.1.8-3.fc18, nodejs-traverse-0.6.3-2.fc18, nodejs-wordwrap-0.0.2-2.fc18, nodejs-yamlish-0.0.5-1.fc18, nodejs-difflet-0.2.3-2.fc18, uglify-js1-1.3.4-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2013-02-15 21:37:32
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tom@compton.nu
--- Comment #10 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Was any consideration given to the question of whether this counts as bundled code given that it is basically copied from assert.js in the node source?
This has now come up in the context of the nodejs-should review (#911188) as that also contains more or less the same code copied from node.
Naturally enough all three versions are now subtly different...
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
--- Comment #11 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- I must admit that, as reviewer, I did not give this particular point the attention it deserved.
Bug opened: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=915082
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894665
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-amdefine-0.0.4-1.fc18, nodejs-buffer-equal-0.0.0-1.fc18, nodejs-charm-0.1.0-1.fc18, nodejs-deep-equal-0.0.0-2.fc18, nodejs-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc18, nodejs-source-map-0.1.8-3.fc18, nodejs-traverse-0.6.3-2.fc18, nodejs-wordwrap-0.0.2-2.fc18, nodejs-yamlish-0.0.5-1.fc18, nodejs-difflet-0.2.3-2.fc18, uglify-js1-1.3.4-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla