Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at

Bug 1098164

Summary: Review Request: nodejs-sorted-object - Returns a copy of an object with its keys sorted
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Ian Firns <firnsy>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: T.C. Hollingsworth <tchollingsworth>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: firnsy, jsmith.fedora, package-review, piotr1212, rdieter, tchollingsworth
Target Milestone: ---Flags: tchollingsworth: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-02-27 21:07:02 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 956806    

Description Ian Firns 2014-05-15 12:24:21 UTC
Spec URL:
Fedora Account System Username: firnsy

Although objects in JavaScript are theoretically unsorted, in practice most engines use insertion order-at least, ignoring numeric keys. This manifests itself most prominently when dealing with an object's JSON serialization.

Comment 1 Ian Firns 2014-05-15 12:26:33 UTC
After two false starts, I'm now more confident that this package is not yet in the pipeline. So, in the interest of demonstrating knowledge of process I have performed an informal self-review IAW the Review Guidelines [1] last updated 2013-02-14.

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


None identified.

===== MUST =====

[x]:  rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
      produces. The output should be posted in the review.

      Note: There is rpmlint output and is attached at bottom.

[x]:  The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

[x]:  The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
      %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.

[x]:  The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[x]:  The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
      Licensing Guidelines.

[x]:  The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.

[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 must be included in %doc.

[x]:  The spec file must be written in American English.

[x]:  The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

[x]:  The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
      provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as
      it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL
      can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines
      for how to deal with this.

[x]:  The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
      least one primary architecture.

[-]:  If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
      architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
      ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed
      in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not
      compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in
      a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.

[x]:  All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
      that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
      inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

[-]:  The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
      %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.

[-]:  Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
      (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
      call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

[x]:  Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

[-]:  If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
      fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
      relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
      considered a blocker.

[x]:  A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
      a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
      create that directory.

[x]:  A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
      %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific

[x]:  Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
      executable permissions, for example.

[x]:  Each package must consistently use macros.

[x]:  The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[-]:  Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
      large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted
      to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).

[x]:  If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
      the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
      properly if it is not present.

[-]:  Static libraries must be in a -static package.

[-]:  Development files must be in a -devel package.

[-]:  In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
      package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =

[-]:  Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
      in the spec if they are built.

[-]:  Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file,
      and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
      %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not
      %need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your

[x]:  Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
      packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
      should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon.
      This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share
      ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or
      man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or
      directory that another package owns, then please present that at package
      review time.

[x]:  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

===== SHOULD =====

[-]:  If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
      from upstream, the packager [ ] query upstream to include it.

[-]:  The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
      contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available

[x]:  The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

[x]:  The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported

      Note: built on 32-bit and 64-bit x86 only.

[x]:  The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
      package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

[-]:  If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and
      left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.

[-]:  Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
      using a fully versioned dependency.

[-]:  The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this
      is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
      A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
      installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.

[-]:  If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
      /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
      file instead of the file itself.

[-]:  Your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't,
      work with upstream to add them where they make sense.


nodejs-sorted-object.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)

nodejs-sorted-object.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


Comment 2 Ian Firns 2014-05-15 14:25:10 UTC
Informal review conducted at

Comment 3 T.C. Hollingsworth 2014-05-20 21:46:36 UTC
Great job.  Thanks for taking the initiative to run fedora-review yourself and fixing the errors.  That really speeds up the process.  :-)

This package is APPROVED.  Welcome to the packager group!

Comment 4 Piotr Popieluch 2015-11-11 20:12:56 UTC
This package is approved seems not built.

Ian, are you still interested in maintaining this package? If so please respond in this bug.

With no response within two weeks I will mark this request as dead and close this bug report.

Comment 5 Ian Firns 2015-11-11 21:59:29 UTC
Yes I am Piotr. I'm currently re-reading how to proceed from package approval.

Comment 6 Piotr Popieluch 2015-11-12 07:33:01 UTC
Thanks, let me know if you need help.

Comment 7 Upstream Release Monitoring 2015-12-06 17:42:04 UTC
pbrobinson's scratch build of copy-jdk-configs?#46c95d0c571fe75622843d99d92a24f392c9b621 for epel7-archbootstrap and git:// completed

Comment 8 Jared Smith 2015-12-15 21:38:14 UTC
We're waiting on this package as it's a dependency for us to be able to update the npm package.  If you need help or have questions, please ask here.  We're willing and eager to help.

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-12-16 15:05:00 UTC
Package request has been approved:

Comment 10 Piotr Popieluch 2016-02-27 21:06:43 UTC
Thanks Ian, 

I see the package got built in f25 and f24, closing this bug.

You might want to update the specfile to the latest guidelines, I see some old (el5 era) lines which can be removed.

You can remove following lines:
rm -rf %{buildroot}
%clean (whole section)

LICENSE.txt should be moved to %license