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 bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1353389
Summary: | Review Request: nodejs-woothee - User-Agent string parser (js implementation) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jared Smith <jsmith.fedora> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Tom Hughes <tom> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, tom |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | tom:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2016-08-14 15:47:10 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 956806, 1353390, 1387531 |
Description
Jared Smith
2016-07-07 00:31:17 UTC
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1353389-nodejs- woothee/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 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-woothee-1.4.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm nodejs-woothee-1.4.0-1.fc25.src.rpm nodejs-woothee.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-woothee.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-woothee.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-woothee.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-woothee.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- nodejs-woothee.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-woothee.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-woothee.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- nodejs-woothee (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) Provides -------- nodejs-woothee: nodejs-woothee npm(woothee) Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/woothee/-/woothee-1.4.0.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 22e7e93022a1514ad988f8453b5cbeeeae4f16730883accda392c0c2ca7b1c4a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 22e7e93022a1514ad988f8453b5cbeeeae4f16730883accda392c0c2ca7b1c4a Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1353389 Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 We should probably run the build steps for lib/dataset.js and release/woothee.js per the Makefile. Also it needs a copy of the license as ASL needs to include license test for distribution. Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-woothee/nodejs-woothee.spec SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-woothee/nodejs-woothee-1.4.0-2.fc24.src.rpm I think the license text is still missing? Strange -- I don't see why you're not seeing it. It should be in /usr/share/licenses/nodejs-woothee/LICENSE-Apache2 I think I got confused somehow, as you're quite right and it is there... Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-woothee |