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 1164486

Summary: Review Request: nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder - Helpers to build forms in Leaflet
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Tom Hughes <tom>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Miroslav Suchý <msuchy>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: msuchy, package-review
Target Milestone: ---Flags: msuchy: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Fixed In Version: nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder-0.0.6-1.fc21 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-12-20 08:33:05 UTC Type: Bug
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: 1164485    
Bug Blocks: 956806, 1164571    

Description Tom Hughes 2014-11-15 17:36:11 UTC
Spec URL:
Fedora Account System Username: tomh

Helpers to build forms in Leaflet.

Comment 1 Miroslav Suchý 2014-12-08 07:32:27 UTC

Comment 2 Miroslav Suchý 2014-12-08 07:56:07 UTC
Package Review

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

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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]: 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]: 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
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[!]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in js-leaflet-
[?]: 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]: 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
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

[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.

It would be nice if you can ask upstream to provide LICENSE file with full text license. But the name of license is specified in package.json so I will not block review because of this.


Comment 3 Tom Hughes 2014-12-08 07:58:52 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder
Short Description: Helpers to build forms in Leaflet
Upstream URL:
Owners: tomh
Branches: f20 f21
InitialCC: jamielinux

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-12-08 13:56:46 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2014-12-08 15:19:11 UTC
nodejs-leaflet-hash-0.2.1-1.fc20,nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder-0.0.6-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.,nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder-0.0.6-1.fc20

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2014-12-08 15:20:44 UTC
nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder-0.0.6-1.fc21,nodejs-leaflet-hash-0.2.1-1.fc21,kosmtik-0.0.9-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.,nodejs-leaflet-hash-0.2.1-1.fc21,kosmtik-0.0.9-2.fc21

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2014-12-12 04:00:50 UTC
nodejs-leaflet-hash-0.2.1-1.fc20, nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder-0.0.6-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2014-12-20 08:33:05 UTC
nodejs-leaflet-hash-0.2.1-1.fc20, nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder-0.0.6-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2014-12-20 08:39:00 UTC
nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder-0.0.6-1.fc21, nodejs-leaflet-hash-0.2.1-1.fc21, kosmtik-0.0.9-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.