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 1448876 - Review Request: nodejs-get-pkg-repo - Get normalized repository from package json data
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-get-pkg-repo - Get normalized repository from package ...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 1364232 1448871
Blocks: nodejs-reviews Node-RED
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2017-05-08 13:27 UTC by Jared Smith
Modified: 2017-05-24 23:16 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2017-05-24 23:16:35 UTC
Type: ---
panemade: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jared Smith 2017-05-08 13:27:19 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: Get normalized repository from package json data
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

Comment 1 Parag AN(पराग) 2017-05-09 05:45:49 UTC
Package Review

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

- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (see attachment)

=> This failed with error
  - nothing provides npm(meow) >= 3.3.0 needed by nodejs-get-pkg-repo-1.3.0-1.fc27.noarch

npm(meow) need to be packaged as well.

===== 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. Licenses
     found: "*No copyright* MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 6
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[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
[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).
[-]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

[-]: 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.

==> But this is okay to provide separate text file

[-]: 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
[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]: 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
[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 1.3.4 starting (python version = 3.6.1)...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux enabled
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: 1.3.4
INFO: Mock Version: 1.3.4
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/parag/1448876-nodejs-get-pkg-repo/results/nodejs-get-pkg-repo-1.3.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output.
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 27 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/parag/1448876-nodejs-get-pkg-repo/results/nodejs-get-pkg-repo-1.3.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts

Checking: nodejs-get-pkg-repo-1.3.0-1.fc27.noarch.rpm
nodejs-get-pkg-repo.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) json -> son, j son
nodejs-get-pkg-repo.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son
nodejs-get-pkg-repo.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-get-pkg-repo.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/get-pkg-repo/node_modules/hosted-git-info /usr/lib/node_modules/hosted-git-info
nodejs-get-pkg-repo.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/get-pkg-repo/node_modules/meow /usr/lib/node_modules/meow
nodejs-get-pkg-repo.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/get-pkg-repo/node_modules/normalize-package-data /usr/lib/node_modules/normalize-package-data
nodejs-get-pkg-repo.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/get-pkg-repo/node_modules/parse-github-repo-url /usr/lib/node_modules/parse-github-repo-url
nodejs-get-pkg-repo.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/get-pkg-repo/node_modules/through2 /usr/lib/node_modules/through2
nodejs-get-pkg-repo.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) json -> son, j son
nodejs-get-pkg-repo.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.

nodejs-get-pkg-repo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b7e4417ecef30334d4a5d838814e35401478710ab643f1d8b211d9ab13eab3c3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b7e4417ecef30334d4a5d838814e35401478710ab643f1d8b211d9ab13eab3c3 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : aadbca207523c1c40640f7c90f68fbe82becd0794a75ef0bf016cd155a3c65d0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aadbca207523c1c40640f7c90f68fbe82becd0794a75ef0bf016cd155a3c65d0

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1448876 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

Comment 2 Jared Smith 2017-05-09 13:59:05 UTC
Sorry, I forgot that this depended on npm(meow).  The review for npm(meow) has been waiting for about a year in bz#1364232 -- perhaps you'd like to take over that review as well?

Comment 3 Parag AN(पराग) 2017-05-09 15:52:32 UTC
Thanks. I will review it.

I was knowing I have seen this word "meow" in the past while working on package reviews but I only checked New package review queue. I now see that its package review is already filed.

Comment 4 Parag AN(पराग) 2017-05-10 01:19:43 UTC
After adding nodejs-meow into the buildroot, this package is working fine.


Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2017-05-19 12:07:20 UTC
Package request has been approved:

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