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 1755147 - Review Request: nodejs-gaze - A globbing wrapper built from parts of other watch libraries
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-gaze - A globbing wrapper built from parts of...
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: FE-DEADREVIEW nodejs-reviews
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2019-09-24 21:14 UTC by Jared Smith
Modified: 2020-10-28 00:45 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2020-10-28 00:45:20 UTC
Type: ---

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jared Smith 2019-09-24 21:14:06 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: A globbing wrapper built from parts of other watch libraries
Fedora Account System Username: jsmith

Comment 1 Jared Smith 2019-09-24 21:15:01 UTC
FWIW, this is a re-review of a retired package.  The original review was RHBZ#912102.

Comment 2 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2019-09-27 14:39:52 UTC
 - Why are tests disabled? Please document it in the SPEC.

%global enable_tests 0

 - Probably can drop this condition now:

%if 0%{?fedora} >= 19
ExclusiveArch: %{nodejs_arches} noarch
ExclusiveArch: %{ix86} x86_64 %{arm} noarch

 - license should be included with %license not %doc:

%license LICENSE-MIT

 - Package is not installable:

DEBUG  Error: 
DEBUG   Problem: conflicting requests
DEBUG    - nothing provides (npm(globule) >= 0.1 with npm(globule) < 0.2) needed by nodejs-gaze-1.1.3-1.fc32.noarch

Globule is at version 1.2.1 in Rawhide.

Package Review

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

- Package installs properly.
  Note: Installation errors (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.
  Note: License file LICENSE-MIT is not marked as %license
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check

===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 23 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 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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
[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.

Checking: nodejs-gaze-1.1.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
nodejs-gaze.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) globbing -> globing, gobbing, lobbing
nodejs-gaze.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fs -> sf, gs, fa
nodejs-gaze.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-gaze.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US globbing -> globing, gobbing, lobbing
nodejs-gaze.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fs -> sf, gs, fa
nodejs-gaze.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chokidar -> choroid
nodejs-gaze.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-gaze.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/gaze/node_modules/globule /usr/lib/node_modules/globule
nodejs-gaze.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) globbing -> globing, gobbing, lobbing
nodejs-gaze.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fs -> sf, gs, fa
nodejs-gaze.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j
nodejs-gaze.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US globbing -> globing, gobbing, lobbing
nodejs-gaze.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fs -> sf, gs, fa
nodejs-gaze.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US chokidar -> choroid
nodejs-gaze.src: W: strange-permission 775
nodejs-gaze.src: W: invalid-url Source1: tests-1.1.3.tar.bz2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings.

Comment 3 Package Review 2020-09-27 00:45:26 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.

Comment 4 Package Review 2020-10-28 00:45:20 UTC
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per
we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.

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