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 1676544 - Review Request: nodejs-event-stream - Construct pipes of streams of events [NEEDINFO]
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-event-stream - Construct pipes of streams of events
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: nodejs-reviews 1675458
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2019-02-12 14:12 UTC by Jared Smith
Modified: 2021-07-11 00:45 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed:
Type: ---
package-review: needinfo? (jsmith.fedora)

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jared Smith 2019-02-12 14:12:53 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: Construct pipes of streams of events
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

Comment 1 Tom Hughes 2019-02-12 19:08:18 UTC
Package Review

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

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

===== 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: "Expat License", "Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1676544-nodejs-
[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 20480 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]: 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
[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.
[!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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
[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 1.4.13 starting (python version = 3.7.2)...
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 ccache
INFO: enabled HW Info plugin
Mock Version: 1.4.13
INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.13
Finish: chroot init
INFO: installing package(s): /home/tom/1676544-nodejs-event-stream/results/nodejs-event-stream-3.3.4-5.fc30.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed: 
 # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/compton-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 30 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=False install /home/tom/1676544-nodejs-event-stream/results/nodejs-event-stream-3.3.4-5.fc30.noarch.rpm

Checking: nodejs-event-stream-3.3.4-5.fc30.noarch.rpm
nodejs-event-stream.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-event-stream.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/event-stream/node_modules/duplexer /usr/lib/node_modules/duplexer
nodejs-event-stream.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/event-stream/node_modules/from /usr/lib/node_modules/from
nodejs-event-stream.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/event-stream/node_modules/map-stream /usr/lib/node_modules/map-stream
nodejs-event-stream.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/event-stream/node_modules/pause-stream /usr/lib/node_modules/pause-stream
nodejs-event-stream.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/event-stream/node_modules/split /usr/lib/node_modules/split
nodejs-event-stream.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/event-stream/node_modules/stream-combiner /usr/lib/node_modules/stream-combiner
nodejs-event-stream.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/event-stream/node_modules/through /usr/lib/node_modules/through
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

nodejs-event-stream (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (npm(duplexer) >= 0.1.1 with npm(duplexer) < 0.2)
    (npm(pause-stream) >= 0.0.11 with npm(pause-stream) < 0.0.12)
    (npm(through) >= 2.3.1 with npm(through) < 2.4)


Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cd4198c30c9deb0d3c5044b230116305539a45b46174a5e8030a3f2d50deed80
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cd4198c30c9deb0d3c5044b230116305539a45b46174a5e8030a3f2d50deed80

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1676544
Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP

Comment 2 Tom Hughes 2019-02-12 19:10:11 UTC
Version is not current - this is an unretire and I realise going to 4.x might be an issue (though it looks like the main thing it does is add two new methods) but the latest 3.x at least might be a good idea?

Also it has two run time dependencies (map-stream and pause-stream) that are not available, presumably because they have also been retired.

Comment 3 Package Review 2020-07-10 00:57:13 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems
that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please
respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the
submitter to proceed with the review.

If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the
fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take
this ticket.

Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.

Comment 4 Package Review 2021-07-11 00:45:28 UTC
This is an automatic check from review-stats script.

This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time. We're sorry
it is taking so long. If you're still interested in packaging this software
into Fedora repositories, please respond to this comment clearing the

You may want to update the specfile and the src.rpm to the latest version
available and to propose a review swap on Fedora devel mailing list to increase
chances to have your package reviewed. If this is your first package and you
need a sponsor, you may want to post some informal reviews. Read more at

Without any reply, this request will shortly be considered abandoned
and will be closed.
Thank you for your patience.

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