https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443790
Bug ID: 1443790 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-has-yarn - Check if a project is using Yarn Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsmith.fedora@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Blocks: 956806 (nodejs-reviews), 1387531 (Node-RED)
Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-has-yarn/nodejs-has-yarn.sp... SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-has-yarn/nodejs-has-yarn-1.... Description: Check if a project is using Yarn Fedora Account System Username: jsmith
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=1387531 [Bug 1387531] Package tracker for supporting Node-RED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443790
Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1444571
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |panemade@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |panemade@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1443790-nodejs-has-yarn/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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 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-has-yarn-1.0.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm nodejs-has-yarn-1.0.0-1.fc27.src.rpm nodejs-has-yarn.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-has-yarn.src: W: invalid-url Source1: fixtures-1.0.0.tar.bz2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-has-yarn.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-has-yarn (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine)
Provides -------- nodejs-has-yarn: nodejs-has-yarn npm(has-yarn)
Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/has-yarn/-/has-yarn-1.0.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4a1c83c57177469cc01455908b9842ac0d4685afed0038d98a4f9eae2fb708ea CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4a1c83c57177469cc01455908b9842ac0d4685afed0038d98a4f9eae2fb708ea https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sindresorhus/has-yarn/v1.0.0/test.js : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 50ac4bc2cf93d5bab81c7dae75ab83c489de8388094bb2acabecb9169e8b2fe5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 50ac4bc2cf93d5bab81c7dae75ab83c489de8388094bb2acabecb9169e8b2fe5
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1443790 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
APPROVED.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444571 [Bug 1444571] Review Request: nodejs-ava-init - Add AVA to your project
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443790
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-has-yarn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443790
Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2017-05-05 07:18:28
--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com --- In rawhide, closing bug
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com