[Bug 2254142] New: Review Request: nodejs-pnpm - Fast, disk space efficient package manager for NodeJS
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
Bug ID: 2254142 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-pnpm - Fast, disk space efficient package manager for NodeJS Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: asn@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Some projects are starting to replace yarn with pnpm. Time to package it for Fedora.
Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/nodejs-pnpm/nodejs-pnpm.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/nodejs-pnpm/nodejs-pnpm-8.12.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: A fast, disk space efficient package manager for NodeJS. Fedora Account System Username: asn
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |asn@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://pnpm.io
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6743428 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file LICENSE-MIT.txt is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... - Not a valid SPDX expression 'Apache-2.0 and BSD-2-Clause and MIT and ISC'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
Łukasz Patron priv.luk@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |priv.luk@gmail.com CC| |priv.luk@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/nodejs-pnpm/nodejs-pnpm.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/nodejs-pnpm/nodejs-pnpm-8.12.0-2.fc40.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2003925 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2003925&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6743428 to 6743738
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6743738 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file LICENSE-MIT.txt is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline... - Not a valid SPDX expression 'MIT and Apache-2.0 AND BSD-2-Clause AND ISC'. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Schneider asn@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/nodejs-pnpm/nodejs-pnpm.spec SRPM URL: https://xor.cryptomilk.org/rpm/nodejs-pnpm/nodejs-pnpm-8.12.0-3.fc40.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2003928 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2003928&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 6743738 to 6743781
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6743781 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- License file LICENSE-MIT.txt is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuideline...
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
--- Comment #8 from Łukasz Patron priv.luk@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - 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. Note: License file LICENSE-MIT.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [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 18282 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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 unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: pnpm-8.12.0-3.fc40.noarch.rpm nodejs-pnpm-8.12.0-3.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpyv_f9nri')] checks: 31, packages: 2
pnpm.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/color-support/bin.js 644 /usr/bin/env node pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/mkdirp/bin/cmd.js 644 /usr/bin/env node pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/gyp 644 /bin/sh pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/gyp_main.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/pylib/gyp/MSVSSettings_test.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/pylib/gyp/__init__.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/pylib/gyp/common_test.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/pylib/gyp/easy_xml_test.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/pylib/gyp/flock_tool.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/pylib/gyp/generator/msvs_test.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/pylib/gyp/generator/ninja_test.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/pylib/gyp/generator/xcode_test.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/pylib/gyp/input_test.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/pylib/gyp/mac_tool.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/pylib/gyp/win_tool.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/test_gyp.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/tools/emacs/run-unit-tests.sh 644 /bin/sh pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/tools/graphviz.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/tools/pretty_gyp.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/tools/pretty_sln.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/gyp/tools/pretty_vcproj.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/macOS_Catalina_acid_test.sh 644 /bin/bash pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/node-gyp/update-gyp.py 644 /usr/bin/env python3 pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/nopt/bin/nopt.js 644 /usr/bin/env node pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/rimraf/bin.js 644 /usr/bin/env node pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/semver/bin/semver.js 644 /usr/bin/env node pnpm.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/which/bin/node-which 644 /usr/bin/env node pnpm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pnpm pnpm.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary pnpx pnpm.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/strip-ansi/license /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/aggregate-error/license:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/ansi-regex/license:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/clean-stack/license:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/env-paths/license:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/indent-string/license:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/is-fullwidth-code-point/license:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/string-width/license pnpm.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/wide-align/LICENSE /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/aproba/LICENSE pnpm.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/cacache/node_modules/brace-expansion/LICENSE /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/brace-expansion/LICENSE pnpm.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/yallist/LICENSE /usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/chownr/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/color-support/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/fs-minipass/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/isexe/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/minimatch/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/minipass-collect/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/minipass-flush/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/minipass-pipeline/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/minipass-sized/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/nopt/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/once/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/rimraf/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/semver/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/semver/node_modules/lru-cache/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/tar/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/which/LICENSE:/usr/lib/node_modules_20/pnpm/dist/node_modules/wrappy/LICENSE pnpm.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/pnpm ../lib/node_modules/pnpm/bin/pnpm.cjs pnpm.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/bin/pnpx ../lib/node_modules/pnpm/bin/pnpx.cjs 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 27 errors, 9 warnings, 27 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "pnpm". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/pnpm/-/pnpm-8.12.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 553e4eb0e2a2c9abcb419b3262bdc7aee8ae3c42e2301a1807d44575786160c9 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 553e4eb0e2a2c9abcb419b3262bdc7aee8ae3c42e2301a1807d44575786160c9
Requires -------- pnpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/node /usr/bin/sh nodejs(engine)
Provides -------- pnpm: npm(pnpm) pnpm
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name nodejs-pnpm --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, fonts, Java, Ocaml, Haskell, R, SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
Łukasz Patron priv.luk@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs-pnpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-00f7f6c7ea has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-00f7f6c7ea
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-00f7f6c7ea has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-00f7f6c7ea *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-00f7f6c7ea
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254142
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-12-14 01:31:36
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-00f7f6c7ea has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com