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 1444562 - Review Request: nodejs-babel-messages - Collection of debug messages used by Babel
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-babel-messages - Collection of debug messages used by ...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: nodejs-reviews Node-RED
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2017-04-22 21:03 UTC by Jared Smith
Modified: 2019-07-20 06:35 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-07-20 06:35:16 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
panemade: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jared Smith 2017-04-22 21:03:13 UTC
Spec URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-babel-messages/nodejs-babel-messages.spec
SRPM URL: https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-babel-messages/nodejs-babel-messages-6.23.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
Description: Collection of debug messages used by Babel
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2017-05-12 10:49:10 UTC
This needs npm(babel-runtime) module.

Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2017-05-25 04:45:07 UTC
Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
1) Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

=>> Since I updated mock from updates-testing on my Fedora 26 system this issue is going on. Package is always failing to get installed in mock.

I can also see the real failure here in mock installation. The reason is this
  - nothing provides npm(regenerator-runtime) >= 0.10.0 needed by nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc26.noarch

Can you work with nodejs-regenerator owner to fix this or %nodejs_fixdep in this package?


===== 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". 242 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/parag/1442275-nodejs-babel-runtime/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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: Mock build failed
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.4.1 starting (python version = 3.6.1)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux disabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux disabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 1.4.1
INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.1
Finish: chroot init
Start: chroot init
INFO: calling preinit hooks
INFO: enabled root cache
INFO: enabled dnf cache
Start: cleaning dnf metadata
Finish: cleaning dnf metadata
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 1.4.1
INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.1
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/parag/1442275-nodejs-babel-runtime/results/nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M 42cecb895d96470aacfd7ba26a1bc8ab -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$  --setenv=LANG=en_US.UTF-8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 27 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/parag/1442275-nodejs-babel-runtime/results/nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm



Rpmlint
-------
Checking: nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-babel-runtime-6.23.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
nodejs-babel-runtime.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) selfContained -> self Contained, self-contained, contained
nodejs-babel-runtime.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US selfContained -> self Contained, self-contained, contained
nodejs-babel-runtime.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-babel-runtime.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-runtime/node_modules/core-js /usr/lib/node_modules/core-js
nodejs-babel-runtime.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-runtime/node_modules/regenerator-runtime /usr/lib/node_modules/regenerator-runtime
nodejs-babel-runtime.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) selfContained -> self Contained, self-contained, contained
nodejs-babel-runtime.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US selfContained -> self Contained, self-contained, contained
nodejs-babel-runtime.src: W: invalid-url Source1: babel-runtime-scripts-6.23.0.tar.bz2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

==> The spelling warnings can be ignored as selfContained is used as it is from upstream.


Requires
--------
nodejs-babel-runtime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nodejs(engine)
    npm(core-js)
    npm(regenerator-runtime)



Provides
--------
nodejs-babel-runtime:
    nodejs-babel-runtime
    npm(babel-runtime)



Source checksums
----------------
https://registry.npmjs.org/babel-runtime/-/babel-runtime-6.23.0.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 698af0da3cd08ba3fe496c797a3b2a3d5141d5c8f5a6161df21a084f75b9fbcc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 698af0da3cd08ba3fe496c797a3b2a3d5141d5c8f5a6161df21a084f75b9fbcc
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/babel/babel/v6.23.0/LICENSE :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f533455c5981c9213689ee68bcc54fb717d8396739781b7e30c344e94323d752
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f533455c5981c9213689ee68bcc54fb717d8396739781b7e30c344e94323d752


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1442275 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

APPROVED.

Comment 3 Parag AN(पराग) 2017-05-25 04:48:50 UTC
Ah I am so sorry. Wrongly pasted nodejs-babel-runtime review text here. Please ignore above comment. I will post review of this package in below comment.

Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2017-05-25 05:08:56 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". 4 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/parag/1444562-nodejs-babel-messages/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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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-babel-messages-6.23.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
          nodejs-babel-messages-6.23.0-1.fc27.src.rpm
nodejs-babel-messages.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-babel-messages.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-messages/node_modules/babel-runtime /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-runtime
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-babel-messages.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-babel-messages.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-messages/node_modules/babel-runtime /usr/lib/node_modules/babel-runtime
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
nodejs-babel-messages (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    nodejs(engine)
    npm(babel-runtime)



Provides
--------
nodejs-babel-messages:
    nodejs-babel-messages
    npm(babel-messages)



Source checksums
----------------
https://registry.npmjs.org/babel-messages/-/babel-messages-6.23.0.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 487345a6086165fd5a3d69cd38bcb914dea5d27ea24176b802519d26647dd936
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 487345a6086165fd5a3d69cd38bcb914dea5d27ea24176b802519d26647dd936
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/babel/babel/master/LICENSE :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f533455c5981c9213689ee68bcc54fb717d8396739781b7e30c344e94323d752
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f533455c5981c9213689ee68bcc54fb717d8396739781b7e30c344e94323d752


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1444562 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

APPROVED.

Comment 5 Parag AN(पराग) 2017-08-08 03:37:31 UTC
ah I don't remember why I have this set as fedora-review? instead fedora-review+

Anyway approving the flag.

Comment 6 Jared Smith 2017-09-15 22:36:57 UTC
'Requested package in ticket https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/1213'

Comment 7 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-09-18 11:13:59 UTC
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/nodejs-babel-messages

Comment 8 Parag AN(पराग) 2019-07-20 06:35:16 UTC
I suppose this review request has been completed already if not please reopen.


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