https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910159
Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(jamielinux@fedora | |project.org) --- Comment #7 from Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== Issues ===== [!]: [MUST] Permissions (see at the end fo the post). The permissions are odd. Why files not in bin are executable? [?]: [SHOULD] %check is present and all tests pass. Why are test disabled by default? [!]: [EXTRA] Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. ===== 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. [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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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 %doc. [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 does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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). [x]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [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. Spec file in SRPM is never, using spec file from SRPM for this review. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7-3.fc20.noarch.rpm nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/node_modules/optimist /usr/lib/node_modules/optimist nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/lib/instrument.js nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/lib/jscoverage.js nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/index.js nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/node_modules/uglify-js /usr/lib/node_modules/uglify-js1 nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jscoverage 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-jscoverage nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js -> dis, ks, j nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/node_modules/optimist /usr/lib/node_modules/optimist nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/lib/instrument.js nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/lib/jscoverage.js nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/index.js nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/node_modules/uglify-js /usr/lib/node_modules/uglify-js1 nodejs-jscoverage.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jscoverage 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- nodejs-jscoverage (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env nodejs(engine) npm(optimist) npm(uglify-js) Provides -------- nodejs-jscoverage: nodejs-jscoverage npm(jscoverage) Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/jscoverage/-/jscoverage-0.3.7.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6bcb884cec2100411cfa2cc33f81b09f72afdcff509148c55fe43527df9fe745 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6bcb884cec2100411cfa2cc33f81b09f72afdcff509148c55fe43527df9fe745 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (eaf16cd) last change: 2013-05-30 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :./try-fedora-review -m fedora-devel-x86_64 -b 910159 $ rpm -qlvp ./nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7-3.fc20.noarch.rpm lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 47 kvě 31 20:47 /usr/bin/jscoverage -> /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/bin/jscoverage drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 kvě 31 20:47 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 kvě 31 20:47 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/bin -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 778 bře 16 17:18 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/bin/jscoverage -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 8449 kvě 9 10:03 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/index.js drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 kvě 31 20:47 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/lib -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 7363 kvě 9 10:03 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/lib/instrument.js -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 2082 led 10 18:37 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/lib/jscoverage.js -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6069 úno 7 09:16 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/lib/patch.js drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 kvě 31 20:47 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/node_modules lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 30 kvě 31 20:47 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/node_modules/optimist -> /usr/lib/node_modules/optimist lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 32 kvě 31 20:47 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/node_modules/uglify-js -> /usr/lib/node_modules/uglify-js1 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1024 kvě 31 20:47 /usr/lib/node_modules/jscoverage/package.json drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 kvě 31 20:47 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1151 bře 15 09:25 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7/LICENSE -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2365 led 9 07:29 /usr/share/doc/nodejs-jscoverage-0.3.7/README.md -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KyUF4jtJgI&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review