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 1269287 - Review Request: nodejs-when - A lightweight Promises/A+ and when() implementation
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-when - A lightweight Promises/A+ and when() implementa...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Tom Hughes
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: nodejs-reviews Node-RED
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-10-06 21:11 UTC by Jared Smith
Modified: 2016-10-21 08:13 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-11-13 19:26:13 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
tom: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jared Smith 2015-10-06 21:11:01 UTC
Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-when/nodejs-when.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-when/nodejs-when-3.7.3-1.fc23.src.rpm
Description: When.js is a rock solid, battle-tested Promises/A+ and when() implementation, including a complete ES6 Promise shim.
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2015-10-06 21:38:55 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.
[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". 41 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1269287
     -nodejs-when/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 40960 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 %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
     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:
[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.
[!]: %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
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nodejs-when-3.7.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-when-3.7.3-1.fc24.src.rpm
nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debuggability -> biodegradability
nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cujoJS 
nodejs-when.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
nodejs-when.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debuggability -> biodegradability
nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cujoJS 
nodejs-when.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-when.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
nodejs-when.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/tom/1269287-nodejs-when/srpm/nodejs-when.spec	2015-10-06 22:27:53.298155751 +0100
+++ /home/tom/1269287-nodejs-when/srpm-unpacked/nodejs-when.spec	2015-10-06 21:40:38.000000000 +0100
@@ -49,4 +49,4 @@
 
 %changelog
-* Mon Oct  5 2015 Jared Smith <jsmith> 3.7.3-1
+* Mon Oct  5 2015 Jared Smith <jsmith>
 - Initial packaging


Requires
--------
nodejs-when (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nodejs
    nodejs(engine)



Provides
--------
nodejs-when:
    nodejs-when
    npm(when)



Source checksums
----------------
https://registry.npmjs.org/when/-/when-3.7.3.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f51935057c2641f93edbbfad1701b4c374f99d1a5989c0e0afcbe820d3007f36
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f51935057c2641f93edbbfad1701b4c374f99d1a5989c0e0afcbe820d3007f36


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1269287
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
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 2 Tom Hughes 2015-10-06 21:42:48 UTC
There's a minor difference between the spec file posted and the one in the srpm - one of them is missing the version number on the changelog entry.

Other than that the only issue is the tests, which aren't being run because they aren't in the npmjs.org package. It would be better if we could run them, but that would mean packaging from github instead.

Comment 3 Jared Smith 2015-10-07 13:05:15 UTC
I've updated the spec file and the associated SRPM at the same locations listed above.

I've fixed the inconsistency between the .spec file and the SRPM, as well as added (provisional) support for running the test suite.  Unfortunately, the tests won't run right now because the test suite requires the "buster" package, which has not yet been packaged in Fedora, and itself has a long list of dependencies.

As such, I've left the %global enable_tests set to 0, but this could easily be flipped in the future should someone package up buster.

Comment 4 Tom Hughes 2015-10-07 17:18:14 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.
[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". 87 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1269287
     -nodejs-when/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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 40960 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 %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
     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:
[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.
[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
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[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-when-3.7.3-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-when-3.7.3-1.fc24.src.rpm
nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debuggability -> biodegradability
nodejs-when.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cujoJS 
nodejs-when.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US debuggability -> biodegradability
nodejs-when.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cujoJS 
nodejs-when.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tests-3.7.3.tar.bz2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-when.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
nodejs-when (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nodejs
    nodejs(engine)



Provides
--------
nodejs-when:
    nodejs-when
    npm(when)



Source checksums
----------------
https://registry.npmjs.org/when/-/when-3.7.3.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f51935057c2641f93edbbfad1701b4c374f99d1a5989c0e0afcbe820d3007f36
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f51935057c2641f93edbbfad1701b4c374f99d1a5989c0e0afcbe820d3007f36


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1269287
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
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 5 Tom Hughes 2015-10-07 17:20:41 UTC
The mocha based recipe you put in for running the tests doesn't seem to work for me, but manually installing the necessary modules with npm and then running the tests per the recipe in packagae.json does, so we're all good on that front now I think.

Only problem now is a missing hyphen before the version number in the spec changelog entry I think.

Comment 7 Tom Hughes 2015-10-07 19:16:58 UTC
Looks good - package is approved.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2015-10-09 18:54:41 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0e7bc9de20

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2015-10-09 18:55:48 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2fc879f3fc

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2015-10-09 18:56:37 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-73efb546d5

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2015-10-09 18:57:43 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1d604dc222

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2015-10-11 18:49:59 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-when'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0e7bc9de20

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2015-10-12 03:57:41 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-when'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-2fc879f3fc

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2015-10-12 18:50:00 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-when'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-73efb546d5

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2015-10-12 18:50:17 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-when'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1d604dc222

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2015-11-13 19:26:10 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2015-11-13 20:26:19 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2015-11-13 22:56:25 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2015-11-14 01:53:55 UTC
nodejs-when-3.7.3-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


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