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 1294078

Summary: Review Request: nodejs-json-diff - JSON diff
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Parag AN(पराग) <panemade>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: jsmith.fedora, package-review, panemade, piotr1212
Target Milestone: ---Flags: panemade: fedora-review+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-05-10 09:50:44 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: 1292149, 1294341    
Bug Blocks: 956806, 1092945    

Description Jared Smith 2015-12-24 13:19:35 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: JSON diff
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2015-12-24 14:16:18 UTC
SRPM link missed here.

Comment 3 Parag AN(पराग) 2015-12-24 15:26:31 UTC
hm, fedora-review tool can't find npm(cli-color). Let's wait for it.

Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2015-12-27 07:52:46 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 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". 15 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[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]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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).
[?]: 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
[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]: 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]: 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/parag/1294078-nodejs-json-diff/results/nodejs-json-diff-0.3.1-1.fc24.noarch.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/parag/1294078-nodejs-json-diff/results/nodejs-json-diff-0.3.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts

Checking: nodejs-json-diff-0.3.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
nodejs-json-diff.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-json-diff.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/json-diff/node_modules/dreamopt /usr/lib/node_modules/dreamopt
nodejs-json-diff.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/json-diff/node_modules/cli-color /usr/lib/node_modules/cli-color
nodejs-json-diff.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/json-diff/node_modules/difflib /usr/lib/node_modules/difflib
nodejs-json-diff.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/json-diff/node_modules/should /usr/lib/node_modules/should
nodejs-json-diff.src: W: invalid-url Source2: example-0.3.1.tar.bz2
nodejs-json-diff.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tests-0.3.1.tar.bz2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

nodejs-json-diff (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 34741f44ba166ae46ee3ffe7eec599a5d7fbcdf4519e28c6de6bf14342c0fb25
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 34741f44ba166ae46ee3ffe7eec599a5d7fbcdf4519e28c6de6bf14342c0fb25 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 172f9868100b14fba7dc1ca429a18b90f6036bac51926a04e2bb68bda3bffdc6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 172f9868100b14fba7dc1ca429a18b90f6036bac51926a04e2bb68bda3bffdc6

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20

1) Remove the comment 
# tests disabled due to missing npm(cli-color) module, which itself has
# a metric ton of missing dependencies
as I see tests are enabled.

2)Good to have more words in summary and description like
"Structural diff for JSON files"

3) Above installation errors are due to missing dependency "npm(dreamopt) >= 0.8.0 ". Please fix this before package import. Looks like package is neither available in Fedora nor its submitted for package review but I can see its on your fedorapeople space.


Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-12-30 23:53:33 UTC
Package request has been approved:

Comment 6 Piotr Popieluch 2015-12-31 10:05:48 UTC
built in rawhide

Comment 7 Parag AN(पराग) 2016-05-01 06:00:40 UTC
When can this review be closed?