[Bug 901453] New: Review Request: nodejs-optimist - Light-weight option parsing for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
Bug ID: 901453 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-optimist - Light-weight option parsing for Node.js Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: tchollingsworth@gmail.com
Spec: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-optimist.spec SRPM: http://patches.fedorapeople.org/npm/nodejs-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc17.src.rpm Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4880054 FAS username: patches
Light-weight option parsing with an argv hash. No optstrings attached.
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=901453
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |901455
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |894725
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jamielinux@fedoraproject.or | |g Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jamielinux@fedoraproject.or | |g Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- 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: [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. [x]: 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 40960 bytes in 17 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. [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 (optimist-0.3.5.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.
===== 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-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc18.src.rpm nodejs-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm nodejs-optimist.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-optimist.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US argv -> Argo nodejs-optimist.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optstrings -> opt strings, opt-strings, striplings nodejs-optimist.src: W: invalid-license MIT/X11 nodejs-optimist.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-optimist.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US argv -> Argo nodejs-optimist.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optstrings -> opt strings, opt-strings, striplings nodejs-optimist.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT/X11 nodejs-optimist.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-optimist nodejs-optimist.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-optimist.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US argv -> Argo nodejs-optimist.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US optstrings -> opt strings, opt-strings, striplings nodejs-optimist.noarch: W: invalid-license MIT/X11 nodejs-optimist.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- nodejs-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
nodejs(engine) npm(wordwrap) < 0.1 npm(wordwrap) >= 0.0.2
Provides -------- nodejs-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc18.noarch.rpm:
nodejs-optimist = 0.3.5-1.fc18 npm(optimist) = 0.3.5
MD5-sum check ------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/optimist/-/optimist-0.3.5.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a407715c9745c9242923f282a70d55947e21f5c4800c99b09d2eb6e48735a09d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a407715c9745c9242923f282a70d55947e21f5c4800c99b09d2eb6e48735a09d
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-optimist-0.3.5-1.fc17.src.rpm
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
--- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- MIT X License is considered the same as MIT in the guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses
So please change to "License: MIT".
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org --- Well, assuming you change the License tag, package approved!
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com --- I already fixed the License tag locally so it will get imported to git with that fixed. Thanks for the review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-optimist Short Description: Lightweight option parsing for Node.js Owners: patches Branches: f18 el6 InitialCC:
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |910150
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
--- Comment #6 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=901453
Jamie Nguyen jamielinux@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|910150 |
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
--- Comment #7 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=901453
Bug 901453 depends on bug 901455, which changed state.
Bug 901455 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-wordwrap - Word wrapping library for node https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901455
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2013-02-15 21:36:28
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=901453
--- 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, 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