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 1285035

Summary: Review Request: nodejs-gdal - Node.js bindings to GDAL
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Tom Hughes <tom>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Piotr Popieluch <piotr1212>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: rawhideCC: package-review, piotr1212
Target Milestone: ---Flags: piotr1212: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-11-29 17:03:37 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, 1279894    

Description Tom Hughes 2015-11-24 17:35:37 UTC
Spec URL:

Read and write raster and vector geospatial datasets straight
from Node.js with this native GDAL binding.

Comment 1 Upstream Release Monitoring 2015-11-24 17:38:59 UTC
tomh's scratch build of nodejs-gdal-0.8.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed

Comment 2 Upstream Release Monitoring 2015-11-24 17:56:40 UTC
tomh's scratch build of nodejs-gdal-0.8.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed

Comment 3 Upstream Release Monitoring 2015-11-24 18:24:50 UTC
tomh's scratch build of nodejs-gdal-0.8.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed

Comment 4 Piotr Popieluch 2015-11-28 21:04:03 UTC
The specfile references PROVENANCE.TXT and PROVENANCE.TXT-fedora, but I can't find them in the srpm

Comment 5 Tom Hughes 2015-11-28 21:19:10 UTC
They're part of the gdal package (in /usr/share/doc/gdal-*) but because gdal is bundled here we have to clean the bundled version.

Comment 6 Piotr Popieluch 2015-11-28 21:50:22 UTC
Thanks, will check it tomorrow, this nodejs module seems to be a bit more complex than the regular so I need some more time to review.

Did you notice that the tif file you provided core dump eog? bug #1286388

Comment 7 Tom Hughes 2015-11-28 21:52:22 UTC
Well it is 100000 pixels wide ;-)

Comment 8 Piotr Popieluch 2015-11-29 16:02:04 UTC
Package Review

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

- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)

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

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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". 4 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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
[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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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 5 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[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 nodejs-
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[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
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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]: 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 =====

[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
     is arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Installation errors
INFO: version 1.2.14 starting (python version = 3.4.3)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
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/piotr/rpmbuild/1285035-nodejs-gdal/results/nodejs-gdal-0.8.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1285035-nodejs-gdal/results/nodejs-gdal-debuginfo-0.8.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1285035-nodejs-gdal/results/nodejs-gdal-debuginfo-0.8.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 24 --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1285035-nodejs-gdal/results/nodejs-gdal-0.8.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1285035-nodejs-gdal/results/nodejs-gdal-debuginfo-0.8.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1285035-nodejs-gdal/results/nodejs-gdal-debuginfo-0.8.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts

Checking: nodejs-gdal-0.8.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm
nodejs-gdal.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-gdal.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US geospatial -> spatial
nodejs-gdal.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases
nodejs-gdal.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-gdal.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-gdal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US geospatial -> spatial
nodejs-gdal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datasets -> data sets, data-sets, databases
nodejs-gdal.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-gdal.src: W: strange-permission 775
nodejs-gdal.src: W: invalid-url Source0: node-gdal-0.8.0-fedora.tar.gz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.

nodejs-gdal-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

nodejs-gdal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1285035
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby

Comment 9 Piotr Popieluch 2015-11-29 16:05:12 UTC
All looks good to me. APPROVED

The installation issue mentioned in the review is the due to the f-r bug, I can install manually successfully.

two minor issues:

- You should change the permissions of the cleaner script.
nodejs-gdal.src: W: strange-permission 775

- Add a comment to Patch2
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise

Comment 10 Till Maas 2015-11-29 16:33:20 UTC
Package request has been approved: