https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
Bug ID: 1269287 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-when - A lightweight Promises/A+ and when() implementation 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-when/nodejs-when.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-when/nodejs-when-3.7.3-1.fc... Description: When.js is a rock solid, battle-tested Promises/A+ and when() implementation, including a complete ES6 Promise shim. Fedora Account System Username: jsmith
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
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=1269287
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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". 41 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1269287 -nodejs-when/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 40960 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-when-3.7.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-when-3.7.3-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debuggability -> biodegradability nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cujoJS nodejs-when.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog nodejs-when.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debuggability -> biodegradability nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cujoJS nodejs-when.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-when.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog nodejs-when.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/tom/1269287-nodejs-when/srpm/nodejs-when.spec 2015-10-06 22:27:53.298155751 +0100 +++ /home/tom/1269287-nodejs-when/srpm-unpacked/nodejs-when.spec 2015-10-06 21:40:38.000000000 +0100 @@ -49,4 +49,4 @@
%changelog -* Mon Oct 5 2015 Jared Smith jsmith@fedoraproject.org 3.7.3-1 +* Mon Oct 5 2015 Jared Smith jsmith@fedoraproject.org - Initial packaging
Requires -------- nodejs-when (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs nodejs(engine)
Provides -------- nodejs-when: nodejs-when npm(when)
Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/when/-/when-3.7.3.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f51935057c2641f93edbbfad1701b4c374f99d1a5989c0e0afcbe820d3007f36 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f51935057c2641f93edbbfad1701b4c374f99d1a5989c0e0afcbe820d3007f36
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 1269287 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=1269287
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- There's a minor difference between the spec file posted and the one in the srpm - one of them is missing the version number on the changelog entry.
Other than that the only issue is the tests, which aren't being run because they aren't in the npmjs.org package. It would be better if we could run them, but that would mean packaging from github instead.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #3 from Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com --- I've updated the spec file and the associated SRPM at the same locations listed above.
I've fixed the inconsistency between the .spec file and the SRPM, as well as added (provisional) support for running the test suite. Unfortunately, the tests won't run right now because the test suite requires the "buster" package, which has not yet been packaged in Fedora, and itself has a long list of dependencies.
As such, I've left the %global enable_tests set to 0, but this could easily be flipped in the future should someone package up buster.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1269538 (IoT)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #4 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". 87 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1269287 -nodejs-when/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: 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 40960 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. [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]: 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-when-3.7.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-when-3.7.3-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debuggability -> biodegradability nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cujoJS nodejs-when.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debuggability -> biodegradability nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cujoJS nodejs-when.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tests-3.7.3.tar.bz2 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-when.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-when (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs nodejs(engine)
Provides -------- nodejs-when: nodejs-when npm(when)
Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/when/-/when-3.7.3.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f51935057c2641f93edbbfad1701b4c374f99d1a5989c0e0afcbe820d3007f36 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f51935057c2641f93edbbfad1701b4c374f99d1a5989c0e0afcbe820d3007f36
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 1269287 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=1269287
--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- The mocha based recipe you put in for running the tests doesn't seem to work for me, but manually installing the necessary modules with npm and then running the tests per the recipe in packagae.json does, so we're all good on that front now I think.
Only problem now is a missing hyphen before the version number in the spec changelog entry I think.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #6 from Jared Smith jsmith.fedora@gmail.com --- Uploaded an updated spec file and SRPM.
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-when/nodejs-when.spec https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-when/nodejs-when-3.7.3-2.fc...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Looks good - package is approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0e7bc9de20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2fc879f3fc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-73efb546d5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1d604dc222
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.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-when' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0e7bc9de20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.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-when' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2fc879f3fc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.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-when' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-73efb546d5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.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-when' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1d604dc222
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.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=1269287
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-11-13 14:26:13
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269287
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.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=1269287
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.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=1269287
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1387531 (Node-RED)
Referenced Bugs:
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=1269287
Peter Robinson pbrobinson@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|1269538 (IoT) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538 [Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org