https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
Bug ID: 1293058 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-fs2 - Node.js fs (file system package) extensions 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-fs2.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Node.js fs (file system package) extensions Fedora Account System Username: piotrp
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |956806 (nodejs-reviews) Depends On| |1292429
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=1292429 [Bug 1292429] Review Request: nodejs-memoizee - Memoize/cache function results
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1044425
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044425 [Bug 1044425] nodejs-minimatch-3.0.0 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058 Bug 1293058 depends on bug 1044425, which changed state.
Bug 1044425 Summary: nodejs-minimatch-3.0.0 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1044425
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
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?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
--- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
===== 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". 96 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1293058 -nodejs-fs2/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 20480 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]: 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. [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: [!]: 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 1.2.14 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... 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 ccache Mock Version: 1.2.14 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.14 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/tom/1293058-nodejs-fs2/results/nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/compton-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/tom/1293058-nodejs-fs2/results/nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.fc24.src.rpm nodejs-fs2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-fs2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fs -> sf, gs, fa nodejs-fs2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-fs2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fs -> sf, gs, fa nodejs-fs2.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-fs2.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/fs2/node_modules/minimatch /usr/lib/node_modules/minimatch nodejs-fs2.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/fs2/node_modules/memoizee /usr/lib/node_modules/memoizee nodejs-fs2.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/fs2/node_modules/deferred /usr/lib/node_modules/deferred nodejs-fs2.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/fs2/node_modules/event-emitter /usr/lib/node_modules/event-emitter nodejs-fs2.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/fs2/node_modules/es5-ext /usr/lib/node_modules/es5-ext nodejs-fs2.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/fs2/node_modules/d /usr/lib/node_modules/d nodejs-fs2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-fs2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fs -> sf, gs, fa nodejs-fs2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-fs2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fs -> sf, gs, fa 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
Requires -------- nodejs-fs2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(d) npm(deferred) npm(es5-ext) npm(event-emitter) npm(memoizee) npm(minimatch)
Provides -------- nodejs-fs2: nodejs-fs2 npm(fs2)
Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/fs2/-/fs2-0.2.3.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2da3ba518ed15b90f45c4a6602bb31b95a3227da89fa9b2578da849dbe9e41ad CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2da3ba518ed15b90f45c4a6602bb31b95a3227da89fa9b2578da849dbe9e41ad
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 1293058 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=1293058
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Needs fixdeps for d and minimatch.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- Thank you, updated
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Looks good now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-fs2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fa251adeb2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-96ea5115f4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-47eee51d4e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2016-47eee51d4e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-96ea5115f4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-fs2-0.2.3-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-fa251adeb2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058 Bug 1293058 depends on bug 1292429, which changed state.
Bug 1292429 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-memoizee - Memoize/cache function results https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1292429
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293058
Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-05-27 16:59:22
--- Comment #12 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- in f24 and rawhide
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org