[Bug 1115702] New: Review Request: nodejs-postcss - Framework for CSS postprocessors with full source map support
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
Bug ID: 1115702 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-postcss - Framework for CSS postprocessors with full source map support Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: rbean@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//nodejs-postcss.spec SRPM URL: http://ralph.fedorapeople.org//nodejs-postcss-1.0.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: PostCSS is a framework for CSS postprocessors, to modify CSS with JavaScript with full source map support.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1115660
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115660 [Bug 1115660] Review Request: nodejs-autoprefixer - Parse CSS and add vendor prefixes to CSS rules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1115661
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115661 [Bug 1115661] Review Request: nodejs-base64-js - Base64 encoding/decoding in pure JS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
T.C. Hollingsworth tchollingsworth@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=1115702 Bug 1115702 depends on bug 1115661, which changed state.
Bug 1115661 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-base64-js - Base64 encoding/decoding in pure JS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115661
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tom@compton.nu
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- I suspect this should probably be packaged from github, as the javascript in the NPM tar ball is not the original upstream code - it has been generated from the source code in the git repo using the gulpfile.
Unfortunately that's probably going to add a load of dependencies...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
--- Comment #2 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- It looks like the only thing that the gulpfile does (as far as building goes) is to remove a dep on es6-transpiler. Here's a new release with:
- Latest upstream. - Github tarball instead of npmjs. - Specify noarch. - Remove es6-transpiler in the prep section in lieu of gulp.
By removing es6-transpiler ourselves, we can (hopefully) avoid packaging gulp for now. What do you think?
Spec URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SPECS/nodejs-postcss.spec SRPM URL: http://threebean.org/rpm/SRPMS/nodejs-postcss-2.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tom@compton.nu Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Well the point is that the gulpfile runs es6-transpiler on the source to create the js that goes in the npm tar ball - the build:lib task.
Other than that, this has a dependency on js-base64 which doesn't seem to be packaged yet.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
--- Comment #4 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- js-base64, huh? which is.. not the same as base64-js. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115661
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1131309
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131309 [Bug 1131309] Review Request: nodejs-js-base64 - Yet another Base64 transcoder in pure-JS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702 Bug 1115702 depends on bug 1131309, which changed state.
Bug 1131309 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-js-base64 - Yet another Base64 transcoder in pure-JS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131309
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
--- Comment #5 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- Tom, it's not clear to me which side of this you come down on. Do I need to also package gulp, es6-transpiler, and their deps to move forward here? (js-base64 is now taken care of).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Well you can probably get away without gulp, and just run transpiler directly in the spec but I don't see any way to avoid transpiler if we're genuinely going to package from source.
You could always ask on the fedora nodejs list and see if people have any suggestions?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1141878
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141878 [Bug 1141878] Review Request: nodejs-es6-transpiler - es6 -> es5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |piotr1212@gmail.com
--- Comment #7 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- Ralph,
It seems that in the newer versions the dependency on es6-transpiler is dropped.
Could you please check if you can update to the latest version?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
--- Comment #8 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- I've update to 5.0.3, this eliminates the dependency on es6-transpiler but adds a new dep on nodejs-babel-core which has many missing dependencies.
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-postcss.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-postcss-5.0.3-1.fc22.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On|1141878 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141878 [Bug 1141878] Review Request: nodejs-es6-transpiler - es6 -> es5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jsmith.fedora@gmail.com
--- Comment #9 from Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com --- Doing an informal package review to help keep the ball rolling here... Other than the rpmlint errors caused by the commented Source0 line in the spec file, this package is looking good to me.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== 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". 87 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jsmith/Documents/Personal/Reviews/1115702-nodejs- postcss/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. [-]: 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 122880 bytes in 6 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]: 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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-postcss-5.0.3-1.fc22.noarch.rpm nodejs-postcss-5.0.3-1.fc22.src.rpm nodejs-postcss.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) postprocessors -> post processors, post-processors, microprocessors nodejs-postcss.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postprocessors -> post processors, post-processors, microprocessors nodejs-postcss.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-postcss.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/postcss/node_modules/babel-core /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-core nodejs-postcss.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/postcss/node_modules/source-map /usr/lib/node_modules/source-map nodejs-postcss.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/postcss/node_modules/supports-color /usr/lib/node_modules/supports-color nodejs-postcss.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/postcss/node_modules/js-base64 /usr/lib/node_modules/js-base64 nodejs-postcss.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) postprocessors -> post processors, post-processors, microprocessors nodejs-postcss.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postprocessors -> post processors, post-processors, microprocessors nodejs-postcss.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{barename} nodejs-postcss.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{barename} nodejs-postcss.src:21: W: macro-in-comment %{version} nodejs-postcss.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 21: #Source0: http://registry.npmjs.org/%%7Bbarename%7D/-/%%7Bbarename%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.t... nodejs-postcss.src: E: specfile-error nodejs-postcss.src: E: specfile-error warning: Macro expanded in comment on line 21: #Source0: http://registry.npmjs.org/%%7Bbarename%7D/-/%%7Bbarename%7D-%%7Bversion%7D.t... 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 12 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-postcss (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(babel-core) npm(js-base64) npm(source-map) npm(supports-color)
Provides -------- nodejs-postcss: nodejs-postcss npm(postcss)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/postcss/postcss/archive/264236ca59694593ffe091e3b75b0f421... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b170b7b322962ae3aa08f072470136e975605a43f799244d96fdb5fc3423cd2f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b170b7b322962ae3aa08f072470136e975605a43f799244d96fdb5fc3423cd2f
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1115702 Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
--- Comment #10 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- The new version depends on babel which is not packaged yet.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1115702
Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2016-04-04 12:07:15
--- Comment #11 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- I'm no longer pursuing this one. Thanks to everyone for the assistance here.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla