[Bug 1275069] New: Review Request: nodejs-stringstream - Encode and decode streams into string streams
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069
Bug ID: 1275069 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-stringstream - Encode and decode streams into string streams Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: piotr1212@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-stringstream.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-stringstream-0.0.4-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Encode and decode streams into string streams Fedora Account System Username: piotrp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |956806 (nodejs-reviews), | |994934
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=994934 [Bug 994934] nodejs-request-2.65.0 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tom@compton.nu Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tom@compton.nu Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- 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". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1275069 -nodejs-stringstream/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 2 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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [!]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: 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: [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-stringstream-0.0.4-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-stringstream-0.0.4-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-stringstream.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-stringstream.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-stringstream (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine)
Provides -------- nodejs-stringstream: nodejs-stringstream npm(stringstream)
Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/stringstream/-/stringstream-0.0.4.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2fa9a774fb611e5132e523b702d29a0582b783eb0d776e55e5a35dbc94a9fc95 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2fa9a774fb611e5132e523b702d29a0582b783eb0d776e55e5a35dbc94a9fc95
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1275069 Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-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=1275069
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- So this is a bit insane, but the LICENSE.txt doesn't actually contain the text of the license, rather it just has a link to it...
Unfortunately as it's MIT that is not acceptable because the license requires that the text be included, so we're going to need to tell upstream and patch it in locally until they fix it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069
--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- Good catch. Done a PR and patched license in. Updated spec and srpm.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Looks good. Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069
--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- Thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-stringstream-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-04768cc714
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-stringstream-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-stringstream' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-04768cc714
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-stringstream-0.0.4-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1275069
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-11-04 15:52:47
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla