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 1075015 - Review Request: nodejs-cookie-parser - A Node.js module for cookie parsing with signatures
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-cookie-parser - A Node.js module for cookie parsing wi...
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:
Blocks: nodejs-reviews 1003338
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-03-11 11:13 UTC by Jamie Nguyen
Modified: 2014-03-15 16:36 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-03-15 16:36:40 UTC
Type: ---
tom: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-11 11:13:34 UTC
Spec URL:
Fedora Account System Username: jamielinux

Parse Cookie header and populate req.cookies with an object keyed by the
cookie names. Optionally you may enabled signed cookie support by passing a
secret string, which assigns req.secret so it may be used by other middleware.

Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2014-03-12 19:08:11 UTC
This has a dependency on cookie-signature 1.0.3 but 1.0.1 is the current version in rawhide.

Comment 2 Tom Hughes 2014-03-12 19:14:08 UTC
Package Review

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

[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.

As it's MIT we also need a local copy in the meantime.

===== 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
[-]: 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]: 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 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]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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/1075015-nodejs-cookie-parser/results/nodejs-cookie-parser-1.0.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/compton-rawhide-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/tom/1075015-nodejs-cookie-parser/results/nodejs-cookie-parser-1.0.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm']
Error: Package: nodejs-cookie-parser-1.0.1-1.fc21.noarch (/nodejs-cookie-parser-1.0.1-1.fc21.noarch)
           Requires: npm(cookie-signature) = 1.0.3
           Available: nodejs-cookie-signature-1.0.1-3.fc20.noarch (fedora)
               npm(cookie-signature) = 1.0.1
 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest

Checking: nodejs-cookie-parser-1.0.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
nodejs-cookie-parser.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-cookie-parser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US req -> re, freq, res
nodejs-cookie-parser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US middleware -> middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight
nodejs-cookie-parser.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-cookie-parser.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/cookie-parser/node_modules/cookie /usr/lib/node_modules/cookie
nodejs-cookie-parser.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/cookie-parser/node_modules/cookie-signature /usr/lib/node_modules/cookie-signature
nodejs-cookie-parser.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-cookie-parser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US req -> re, freq, res
nodejs-cookie-parser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US middleware -> middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.

nodejs-cookie-parser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 04835474a3919dcd522bdf8b58cb6960ac184aaebc483e0f7974e1d47d30ed35
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 04835474a3919dcd522bdf8b58cb6960ac184aaebc483e0f7974e1d47d30ed35

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 1075015
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 3 Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-12 19:52:38 UTC
Ah yeah. I've got an update to nodejs-cookie-signature prepared too.

A copy of the local repo I'm using:

Comment 4 Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-12 19:56:56 UTC
Spec URL:

* Wed Mar 12 2014 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux> - 1.0.1-2
- add copy of the MIT license

Pull request sent upstream.

Comment 5 Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-12 19:59:02 UTC
Spec URL:

* Wed Mar 12 2014 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux> - 1.0.1-3
- fix inclusion of LICENSE

Comment 6 Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-12 20:06:15 UTC
Spec URL:

* Wed Mar 12 2014 Jamie Nguyen <jamielinux> - 1.0.1-4
- upstream have merged the pull request, so now use upstream's copy of

Comment 7 Tom Hughes 2014-03-12 20:16:08 UTC
Looks good now. Package approved.

Comment 8 Jamie Nguyen 2014-03-12 20:22:58 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: nodejs-cookie-parser
Short Description: A Node.js module for cookie parsing with signatures
Owners: jamielinux patches
Branches: f19 f20 el6

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-03-13 12:18:14 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

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