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 977137
Summary: | Review Request: nodejs-zlib-browserify - Wrapper for zlib.js to allow for use in browsers | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek> |
Status: | CLOSED RAWHIDE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | jamielinux, mrunge, package-review, tchollingsworth, zbyszek |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | tchollingsworth:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2014-03-19 18:57:38 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: | 1077322 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 956806, 977126, 1078469 |
Description
Jamie Nguyen
2013-06-23 17:11:08 UTC
Looks like this bundles: https://github.com/imaya/zlib.js A review request for zlib.js is submitted: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1024589. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/gruntjs/nodejs-zlib-browserify.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/gruntjs/SRPMS/nodejs-zlib-browserify-0.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm * Thu Mar 13 2014 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux> - 0.0.3-1 - update to upstream release 0.0.3 - patch to use npm(zlibjs) module Sorry for barging in, but I have the dependencies built locally, so I'll do this one too. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. MIT. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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 2 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]: 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]: 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 work. [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 %{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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists. Pull request has been submitted. [-]: 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]: 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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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 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-zlib-browserify-0.0.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm nodejs-zlib-browserify-0.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm nodejs-zlib-browserify.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-zlib-browserify.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-zlib-browserify.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-zlib-browserify.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/zlib-browserify/node_modules/zlibjs /usr/lib/node_modules/zlibjs nodejs-zlib-browserify.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-zlib-browserify.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. All OK. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-zlib-browserify nodejs-zlib-browserify.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-zlib-browserify.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-zlib-browserify.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib All OK. nodejs-zlib-browserify.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/zlib-browserify/node_modules/zlibjs /usr/lib/node_modules/zlibjs Target provided by nodejs-zlibjs.rpm. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nodejs-zlib-browserify (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(zlibjs) Provides -------- nodejs-zlib-browserify: nodejs-zlib-browserify npm(zlib-browserify) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/zlib-browserify/-/zlib-browserify-0.0.3.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 767ca7a678e7188ada638d4d2416a777e591ec708e5dbd1d3ae526c10f68a25a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 767ca7a678e7188ada638d4d2416a777e591ec708e5dbd1d3ae526c10f68a25a Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 977137 -c -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -L nodejs-zlibjs/noarch Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Built with local dependencies: /home/zbyszek/fedora/nodejs-zlibjs/noarch/nodejs-zlibjs-0.2.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm /home/zbyszek/fedora/nodejs-zlibjs/noarch/js-zlib-0.2.0-5.fc21.noarch.rpm Everything looks fine. Package is APPROVED. I don't mind at all. :-) Setting review flag to approved. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-zlib-browserify Short Description: Wrapper for zlib.js to allow for use in browsers Owners: jamielinux patches Branches: InitialCC: Git done (by process-git-requests). Built for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=505679 |