[Bug 1444562] New: Review Request: nodejs-babel-messages - Collection of debug messages used by Babel
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562
Bug ID: 1444562 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-babel-messages - Collection of debug messages used by Babel 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-babel-messages/nodejs-babel... SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-babel-messages/nodejs-babel... Description: Collection of debug messages used by Babel 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=1444562
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 --- This needs npm(babel-runtime) module.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562
--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= 1) Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
=>> Since I updated mock from updates-testing on my Fedora 26 system this issue is going on. Package is always failing to get installed in mock.
I can also see the real failure here in mock installation. The reason is this - nothing provides npm(regenerator-runtime) >= 0.10.0 needed by nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc26.noarch
Can you work with nodejs-regenerator owner to fix this or %nodejs_fixdep in this package?
===== 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". 242 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1442275-nodejs-babel-runtime/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]: 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. [-]: 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.1 starting (python version = 3.6.1)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.1 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.1 Finish: chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.1 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/parag/1442275-nodejs-babel-runtime/results/nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 42cecb895d96470aacfd7ba26a1bc8ab -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v$ --setenv=LANG=en_US.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 27 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/parag/1442275-nodejs-babel-runtime/results/nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc27.src.rpm nodejs-babel-runtime.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) selfContained -> self Contained, self-contained, contained nodejs-babel-runtime.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US selfContained -> self Contained, self-contained, contained nodejs-babel-runtime.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-babel-runtime.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-runtime/node_modules/core-js /usr/lib/node_modules/core-js nodejs-babel-runtime.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-runtime/node_modules/regenerator-runtime /usr/lib/node_modules/regenerator-runtime nodejs-babel-runtime.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) selfContained -> self Contained, self-contained, contained nodejs-babel-runtime.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US selfContained -> self Contained, self-contained, contained nodejs-babel-runtime.src: W: invalid-url Source1: babel-runtime-scripts-6.23.0.tar.bz2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
==> The spelling warnings can be ignored as selfContained is used as it is from upstream.
Requires -------- nodejs-babel-runtime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(core-js) npm(regenerator-runtime)
Provides -------- nodejs-babel-runtime: nodejs-babel-runtime npm(babel-runtime)
Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/babel-runtime/-/babel-runtime-6.23.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 698af0da3cd08ba3fe496c797a3b2a3d5141d5c8f5a6161df21a084f75b9fbcc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 698af0da3cd08ba3fe496c797a3b2a3d5141d5c8f5a6161df21a084f75b9fbcc https://raw.githubusercontent.com/babel/babel/v6.23.0/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f533455c5981c9213689ee68bcc54fb717d8396739781b7e30c344e94323d752 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f533455c5981c9213689ee68bcc54fb717d8396739781b7e30c344e94323d752
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1442275 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- Ah I am so sorry. Wrongly pasted nodejs-babel-runtime review text here. Please ignore above comment. I will post review of this package in below comment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 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". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1444562-nodejs-babel-messages/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]: 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. [-]: 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-babel-messages-6.23.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm nodejs-babel-messages-6.23.0-1.fc27.src.rpm nodejs-babel-messages.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-babel-messages.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-messages/node_modules/babel-runtime /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-runtime 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-babel-messages.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-babel-messages.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-messages/node_modules/babel-runtime /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-runtime 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-babel-messages (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(babel-runtime)
Provides -------- nodejs-babel-messages: nodejs-babel-messages npm(babel-messages)
Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/babel-messages/-/babel-messages-6.23.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 487345a6086165fd5a3d69cd38bcb914dea5d27ea24176b802519d26647dd936 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 487345a6086165fd5a3d69cd38bcb914dea5d27ea24176b802519d26647dd936 https://raw.githubusercontent.com/babel/babel/master/LICENSE : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f533455c5981c9213689ee68bcc54fb717d8396739781b7e30c344e94323d752 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f533455c5981c9213689ee68bcc54fb717d8396739781b7e30c344e94323d752
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1444562 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- ah I don't remember why I have this set as fedora-review? instead fedora-review+
Anyway approving the flag.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562
Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com --- 'Requested package in ticket https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/1213'
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444562
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs-babel-messages
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com