https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
Bug ID: 1291390 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-graceful-readlink - The graceful fs.readlink functionality Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jsmith.fedora@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-graceful-readlink/nodejs-gr... SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-graceful-readlink/nodejs-gr... Description: The graceful fs.readlink functionality Fedora Account System Username: jsmith
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@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=1291390
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
Issues:
1) Do we need to specify explicit "Requires: nodejs" ? If yes can we have some comment above it?
===== 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". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/parag/1291390-nodejs-graceful-readlink/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. [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-graceful-readlink.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fs -> sf, gs, fa nodejs-graceful-readlink.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fs -> sf, gs, fa nodejs-graceful-readlink.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-graceful-readlink.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fs -> sf, gs, fa nodejs-graceful-readlink.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fs -> sf, gs, fa 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-graceful-readlink.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-graceful-readlink (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs nodejs(engine)
Provides -------- nodejs-graceful-readlink: nodejs-graceful-readlink npm(graceful-readlink)
Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/graceful-readlink/-/graceful-readlink-1.0.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1ce83682d563874517386a13c364eb0a8494e99a69203cff264a1381cb3a300 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1ce83682d563874517386a13c364eb0a8494e99a69203cff264a1381cb3a300
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-graceful-readlink
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-e7dda252ff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-857ef4239e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-fa433a8a8b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-308795e585
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 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-graceful-readlink' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-857ef4239e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 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 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-graceful-readlink' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-308795e585
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 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 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-graceful-readlink' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-fa433a8a8b
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.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-graceful-readlink' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-e7dda252ff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |piotr1212@gmail.com Blocks| |1120123
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120123 [Bug 1120123] nodejs-commander-2.9.0 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jsmith.fedora@gmail.com Flags| |needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma | |il.com)
--- Comment #11 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- Is there any reason for not to push this package to any stable repository yet?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Flags|needinfo?(jsmith.fedora@gma | |il.com) | Last Closed| |2016-05-14 12:08:27
--- Comment #12 from Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com --- Sorry, I built this package as part of the upgrade to NodeJS 4.x, and then got distracted with my new job and forgot to go back and push to stable for F22, F23, and EPEL 6/7.
I've now pushed them, thanks for the reminder.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1291390
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.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=1291390
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-graceful-readlink-1.0.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org