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 1071673 - Review Request: nodejs-transformers - String/Data transformations for Node.js.
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-transformers - String/Data transformations for Node.js.
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom Hughes
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 1071669 1071672
Blocks: nodejs-reviews 953022
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-03-02 18:46 UTC by Jamie Nguyen
Modified: 2014-03-15 16:40 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-03-15 16:40:04 UTC
Type: ---
tom: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-02 18:46:08 UTC
Spec URL:
Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux

String/Data transformations for use in templating libraries, static site
generators and web frameworks. This gathers the most useful transformations
you can apply to text or data into one library with a consistent API.
Transformations can be pretty much anything but most are either compilers
or templating engines.

Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2014-03-02 21:41:27 UTC
Package Review

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

[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

I see 12 test failures when running with npm installed dependencies.

===== 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. 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 20480 bytes in 3 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 %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
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: 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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[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 =====

[!]: 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 1.1.36 starting...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux disabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Mock Version: 1.1.36
INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.36
Start: lock buildroot
INFO: installing package(s): /home/tom/1071673-nodejs-transformers/results/nodejs-transformers-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/compton-rawhide-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/tom/1071673-nodejs-transformers/results/nodejs-transformers-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm']
Not using downloaded repomd.xml because it is older than what we have:
  Current   : Sun Mar  2 13:05:14 2014
  Downloaded: Sat Mar  1 13:38:11 2014
Error: Package: nodejs-transformers-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch (/nodejs-transformers-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch)
           Requires: npm(promise) >= 4
 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
Error: Package: nodejs-transformers-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch (/nodejs-transformers-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch)
           Requires: npm(css) < 2
Error: Package: nodejs-transformers-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch (/nodejs-transformers-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch)
           Requires: npm(css) >= 1
Error: Package: nodejs-transformers-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch (/nodejs-transformers-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch)
           Requires: npm(promise) < 5
 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest

Checking: nodejs-transformers-3.0.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
nodejs-transformers.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-transformers.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting
nodejs-transformers.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-transformers.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/transformers/node_modules/promise /usr/lib/node_modules/promise
nodejs-transformers.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/transformers/node_modules/css /usr/lib/node_modules/css
nodejs-transformers.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/transformers/node_modules/uglify-js /usr/lib/node_modules/uglify-js@2
nodejs-transformers.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-transformers.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US templating -> contemplating, template, tempting
nodejs-transformers.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tests-3.0.0.tar.bz2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

nodejs-transformers (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8b986a05103034c5b42b43d426d3c7c301447f47f759eb3930787784af70a473
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8b986a05103034c5b42b43d426d3c7c301447f47f759eb3930787784af70a473

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1071673
Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby

Comment 2 Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-03 23:16:56 UTC
Spec URL:

* Mon Mar 04 2014 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux> - 3.0.0-2
- add patch for failing tests

I only saw 6 tests failing. After this patch, all tests are passing:

  233 passing (2s)
  4 pending

I did a cheating scratch build (with a tarball created from the missing test unit deps and unpacked during %setup) and that passed with no errors:

Comment 3 Tom Hughes 2014-03-04 00:38:39 UTC
Confirmed that with that patch, and using the Fedora builds of promise and css instead of NPM ones, all the tests pass, so package approved.

Comment 4 Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-04 06:40:42 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: nodejs-transformers
Short Description: String/Data transformations for Node.js
Owners: jamielinux patches
Branches: f19 f20 el6

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-03-06 13:35:35 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.