https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
Bug ID: 1426961 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-bufferutil - WebSocket buffer utils Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rosser.bjr@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/quassel/quassel-webserver/nodejs-bufferutil.sp... SRPM URL: https://tc01.fedorapeople.org/quassel/quassel-webserver/nodejs-bufferutil-2....
Description: bufferutil provides some utilities to efficiently perform some operations such as masking and unmasking the data payload of WebSocket frames.
Fedora Account System Username: tc01
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |956806 (nodejs-reviews)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1426962
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426962 [Bug 1426962] Review Request: nodejs-net-browserify-alt - A port of the net module for the browser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED CC| |jsmith.fedora@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jsmith.fedora@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com --- Package is approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: 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. [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]: 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 %license. [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: [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in nodejs- bufferutil-debuginfo [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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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 debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-bufferutil-2.0.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm nodejs-bufferutil-debuginfo-2.0.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm nodejs-bufferutil-2.0.1-1.fc27.src.rpm nodejs-bufferutil.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utils -> tills nodejs-bufferutil.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/bufferutil/node_modules/bindings /usr/lib/node_modules/bindings nodejs-bufferutil.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/bufferutil/node_modules/nan /usr/lib/node_modules/nan@2 nodejs-bufferutil.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utils -> tills 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: nodejs-bufferutil-debuginfo-2.0.1-1.fc27.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-bufferutil.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) utils -> tills nodejs-bufferutil.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/bufferutil/node_modules/bindings /usr/lib/node_modules/bindings nodejs-bufferutil.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/bufferutil/node_modules/nan /usr/lib/node_modules/nan@2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-bufferutil (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) nodejs(abi6) nodejs(engine) nodejs(v8-abi5) npm(bindings) npm(nan) rtld(GNU_HASH)
nodejs-bufferutil-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
Provides -------- nodejs-bufferutil: nodejs-bufferutil nodejs-bufferutil(x86-64) npm(bufferutil)
nodejs-bufferutil-debuginfo: nodejs-bufferutil-debuginfo nodejs-bufferutil-debuginfo(x86-64)
Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/bufferutil/-/bufferutil-2.0.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f885f7bfc3bce5dbb49d770537edffcecae4b3eb44515fefdf2bab7b4b1686ed CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f885f7bfc3bce5dbb49d770537edffcecae4b3eb44515fefdf2bab7b4b1686ed
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1426961 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
--- Comment #2 from Ben Rosser rosser.bjr@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
--- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-bufferutil
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-bufferutil-3.0.0-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5a46a9a3c9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-bufferutil-3.0.0-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-caef265c8c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-bufferutil-3.0.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-dc1de66471
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-bufferutil-3.0.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-5a46a9a3c9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-bufferutil-3.0.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-dc1de66471
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-bufferutil-3.0.0-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-caef265c8c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426961
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2017-04-01 13:06:06
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-bufferutil-3.0.0-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com