[Bug 1086245] Review Request: nodejs-jsonstream -streaming JSON.parse and stringify for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086245 --- Comment #9 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Is there any progress here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1086245] Review Request: nodejs-jsonstream -streaming JSON.parse and stringify for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086245 --- Comment #10 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #9) Is there any progress here? I think we're waiting on anish to update his spec to use the lower case name for the package, but the mixed case name for the directory and also to look at the other things I mentioned after my initial review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141878] Review Request: nodejs-es6-transpiler - es6 - es5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141878 --- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- Hi Ralph, When I run the tests they fail, any idea why? All requirements for the tests are satisfied. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171226] Review Request: nodejs-unicode-7.0.0 - Language detection library for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171226
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
Docs Contact||piotr1...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
Summary is incorrect.
Rest is all correct, please fix the summary and I will approve.
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:
Unknown or generated. 1495 files have unknown license. Detailed output
of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-
unicode-7.0.0/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 102400 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 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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside
[Bug 1171226] Review Request: nodejs-unicode-7.0.0 - Language detection library for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171226 --- Comment #2 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Updated Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/nodejs-unicode-7.0.0.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/nodejs-unicode-7.0.0-0.1.5-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171226] Review Request: nodejs-unicode-7.0.0 - JavaScript-compatible Unicode 7.0.0 data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171226 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |nodejs-unicode-7.0.0 - |nodejs-unicode-7.0.0 - |Language detection library |JavaScript-compatible |for Node.js |Unicode 7.0.0 data Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- Looks good now, approved -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1086217] Review Request: nodejs-strip-json-comments - Strip comments from JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086217 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||apa...@redhat.com, ||pnem...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(apa...@redhat.com ||) --- Comment #14 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Hi Anish, Please add el6 and epel7 branches by requesting here Package Change Request. Thanks. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1168005] Review Request: python-manilaclient - Client Library for OpenStack Share API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168005 --- Comment #4 from Haïkel Guémar karlthe...@gmail.com --- My apologies Pete, I failed to see your update. There's still one build failure due to missing BuildRequires: python-oslo-sphinx. There should be no other issue remaining. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171228] Review Request: nodejs-deep-extend - Recursive object extending
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171228
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
nodejs-should is available, please add to BuildRequires and enable tests (tests
pass).
All the rest is OK. APPROVED
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. 1 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-
deep-extend/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.
[x]: 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 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 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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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 (not strictly
[Bug 1105613] Review Request: otter-browser - Browser aiming to recreate classic Opera (12.x) UI using Qt5.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1105613
Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||lkund...@v3.sk
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lkund...@v3.sk
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #15 from Lubomir Rintel lkund...@v3.sk ---
Looking well enough, taking it for a review:
* Named correctly
* Version correct
* License good for Fedora
* License text present
- License tag might be incorrect (see below)
* SPEC file clean and legible
* RPMLint happy
- Filelist contains an orphan (see below)
- Requires might be missing a dependency (see below)
* Provides fine
* Builds fine in mock
0.) The Url tag seems wrong:
Project's web site seems to be http://otter-browser.org/
1.) License tag might be wrong:
e.g. the header at ./src/core/SettingsManager.h suggest that it's GPLv3+?
2.) You install into %{_datadir}/icons/hicolor, but don't own it or depends on
anything that would own it.
Also, please consider adding AppData. While it's not strictly required yet,
your application won't show up in the sotware center without it. See draft
guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rhughes/DraftAppDataGuidelines
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171231] Review Request: nodejs-object-assign - ES6 Object.assign() ponyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171231
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
builds and installs fine. APPROVED
suggestion:
You could download and include tests from upstream.
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:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-object-
assign/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 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 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]: 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]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a
[Bug 1171231] Review Request: nodejs-object-assign - ES6 Object.assign() ponyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171231 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171228] Review Request: nodejs-deep-extend - Recursive object extending
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171228 --- Comment #2 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thanks for finding nodejs-should, somehow I missed to find it. Updated package with same release. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/nodejs-deep-extend.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/nodejs-deep-extend-0.3.2-1.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1168743] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-its - Provides its method formally part of rspec-core
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168743 --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Well, for 1.0.1-2: * %license - License file is LICENSE.txt, not Changelog.md ! Newest - Newest is 1.1.0. ? Supporting branches - Do you want to support this package also on F-19 and F-20? (Note that currently rspec 3.x is only on F-22). I think ?fc19 and ?fc20 is not useful for this package. At least please fix %license tag and upgrade to the latest, when importing this into git. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1168743] Review Request: rubygem-rspec-its - Provides its method formally part of rspec-core
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1168743 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- As the above I mentioned is some minor issues, approving. This package (rubygem-rspec-its) is APPROVED by mtasaka -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171401] Review Request: rubygem-clutter-gtk - Ruby binding of Clutter-GTK
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171401 Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Mamoru TASAKA mtas...@fedoraproject.org --- Thank you! Maybe it could be written as Adjust rubygems-gnome2 requirement to be more flexible. Okay. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-clutter-gtk Short Description: Ruby binding of Clutter-GTK Upstream URL: http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.jp/ Owners: mtasaka Branches: f21 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171231] Review Request: nodejs-object-assign - ES6 Object.assign() ponyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171231 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thanks for your suggestion. Added test from upstream now. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/nodejs-object-assign.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/nodejs-object-assign-2.0.0-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171231] Review Request: nodejs-object-assign - ES6 Object.assign() ponyfill
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171231 --- Comment #3 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thank you for this review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-object-assign Short Description: ES6 Object.assign() ponyfill Upstream URL: https://github.com/sindresorhus/object-assign Owners: pnemade Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171226] Review Request: nodejs-unicode-7.0.0 - JavaScript-compatible Unicode 7.0.0 data
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171226 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thank you for this review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-unicode-7.0.0 Short Description: JavaScript-compatible Unicode 7.0.0 data Upstream URL: http://mths.be/node-unicode-data Owners: pnemade Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171228] Review Request: nodejs-deep-extend - Recursive object extending
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171228 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thank you for this review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-deep-extend Short Description: Recursive object extending Upstream URL: https://github.com/unclechu/node-deep-extend Owners: pnemade Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171233] Review Request: nodejs-timed-out - Timeout HTTP/HTTPS requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171233 --- Comment #1 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- upstream test.js is failing so disabled tests Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/nodejs-timed-out.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/nodejs-timed-out-2.0.0-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171235] Review Request: nodejs-read-all-stream - Read all stream content and pass it to callback
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171235 --- Comment #1 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- upstream test.js is failing so disabled tests Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/nodejs-read-all-stream.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/nodejs-read-all-stream-0.1.2-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171232] Review Request: nodejs-fs-ext - Extensions to core 'fs' module for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171232 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||piotr1...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- Test pass here on f21 When running fedora-review tool it gives me this rpmlint error: nodejs-fs-ext.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/node_modules/fs-ext/build/fs-ext.node 0775L When I run rpmlint myself it doesn't complain about that, any idea why?? Rpmlint --- Checking: nodejs-fs-ext-0.4.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm nodejs-fs-ext-0.4.2-1.fc21.src.rpm nodejs-fs-ext.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js - dis, ks, j nodejs-fs-ext.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js - dis, ks, j nodejs-fs-ext.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/node_modules/fs-ext/build/fs-ext.node 0775L nodejs-fs-ext.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/fs-ext/node_modules/nan /usr/lib/node_modules/nan@^1 nodejs-fs-ext.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js - dis, ks, j nodejs-fs-ext.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js - dis, ks, j 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) # rpmlint nodejs-fs-ext nodejs-fs-ext.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) js - dis, ks, j nodejs-fs-ext.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US js - dis, ks, j nodejs-fs-ext.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/lib/node_modules/fs-ext/build/fs-ext.node 0775L nodejs-fs-ext.x86_64: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/fs-ext/node_modules/nan /usr/lib/node_modules/nan@^1 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171232] Review Request: nodejs-fs-ext - Extensions to core 'fs' module for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171232 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #3 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- It happens that when you do packaging testing on your machine it works but we need to make sure it actually works in mock build that mean scratch build should succeed. You are right tests are working fine. I disabled them based on failure happened on my copr repository. But as scratch build worked fine on koji, let's enable them. About rpmlint error, I think we can ignore it here but good to report bug against fedora-review package. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/nodejs-fs-ext.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/nodejs-fs-ext-0.4.2-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171233] Review Request: nodejs-timed-out - Timeout HTTP/HTTPS requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171233
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
Source2 url incorrect, 404 not found, please correct or remove as it is not
used.
Package looks good for the rest.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-
timed-out/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
= 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:
Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-timed-out/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 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 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]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
Note: Could not download Source2:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sindresorhus/timed-out/master/test.js
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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
[Bug 1171232] Review Request: nodejs-fs-ext - Extensions to core 'fs' module for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171232 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171233] Review Request: nodejs-timed-out - Timeout HTTP/HTTPS requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171233 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171233] Review Request: nodejs-timed-out - Timeout HTTP/HTTPS requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171233 --- Comment #3 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- These upstream problems are creating more packaging for us. The source2 issue is fixed now Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/nodejs-timed-out.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/nodejs-timed-out-2.0.0-2.fc21.src.rpm Note I have not bumped the release. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171232] Review Request: nodejs-fs-ext - Extensions to core 'fs' module for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171232 --- Comment #5 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Piotr, You may want to set fedora-review+ flag not fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171233] Review Request: nodejs-timed-out - Timeout HTTP/HTTPS requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171233 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- Not really sure if I'm mixing up but it seems that the License in SRPM differs from the upstream license..?? Could you check before importing in SCM? package APPROVED Issues: === - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs- timed-out/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL ➜ rpmbuild cat /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-timed-out/diff.txt diff -U2 -r /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-timed-out/upstream-unpacked/Source1/license /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-timed-out/srpm-unpacked/license-extract/license --- /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-timed-out/upstream-unpacked/Source1/license 2014-12-07 18:10:27.022911945 +0100 +++ /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-timed-out/srpm-unpacked/license-extract/license 2014-12-07 18:10:27.041912175 +0100 @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ The MIT License (MIT) -Copyright (c) Vsevolod Strukchinsky floatd...@gmail.com +Copyright (c) Sindre Sorhus sindresor...@gmail.com (sindresorhus.com) Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171232] Review Request: nodejs-fs-ext - Extensions to core 'fs' module for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171232 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- oops, fixed -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170875] Review Request: budgie-desktop - An elegant desktop with GNOME integration
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170875 --- Comment #12 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek zbys...@in.waw.pl --- My last comment is wrong. Even if it is a copy library, FESCo is supposed to give its stamp of approval. Please file a ticket for a bundling exception at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/newticket. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171233] Review Request: nodejs-timed-out - Timeout HTTP/HTTPS requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171233 --- Comment #5 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Ah I got it. I mixed source with other packages. Thank you for approving. I have fixed this issue below. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/nodejs-timed-out.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/nodejs-timed-out-2.0.0-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170816] Review Request: nodejs-astral-angular-annotate - AngularJS DI annotation pass for astral
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170816 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Looks like group tag still present, you can remove it at time of package import. Looks good now. Don't forget to keep asking upstream to include license text and when available update the package. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170812] Review Request: nodejs-astral - AST tooling framework for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170812 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Looks good now. Don't forget to keep asking upstream to include license text and when available update the package. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170815] Review Request: nodejs-astral-pass - Pass helper for Astral that simplifies traversal.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170815 Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Parag AN(पराग) panem...@gmail.com --- Looks good now. Don't forget to keep asking upstream to include license text and when available update the package. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171233] Review Request: nodejs-timed-out - Timeout HTTP/HTTPS requests
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171233 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-timed-out Short Description: Timeout HTTP/HTTPS requests Upstream URL: https://github.com/floatdrop/timed-out Owners: pnemade Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171232] Review Request: nodejs-fs-ext - Extensions to core 'fs' module for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171232 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-fs-ext Short Description: Extensions to core 'fs' module for Node.js Upstream URL: https://github.com/baudehlo/node-fs-ext/ Owners: pnemade Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170816] Review Request: nodejs-astral-angular-annotate - AngularJS DI annotation pass for astral
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170816 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-astral-angular-annotate Short Description: AngularJS DI annotation pass for astral Upstream URL: Owners: piotrp Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: https://github.com/btford/astral-angular-annotate -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170816] Review Request: nodejs-astral-angular-annotate - AngularJS DI annotation pass for astral
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170816 --- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-astral-angular-annotate Short Description: AngularJS DI annotation pass for astral Upstream URL: https://github.com/btford/astral-angular-annotate Owners: piotrp Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170812] Review Request: nodejs-astral - AST tooling framework for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170812 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-astral Short Description: AST tooling framework for JavaScript Upstream URL: https://github.com/btford/astral Owners: piotrp Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1170815] Review Request: nodejs-astral-pass - Pass helper for Astral that simplifies traversal.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1170815 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-astral-pass Short Description: Pass system for Astral Upstream URL: https://github.com/btford/astral-pass Owners: piotrp Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171235] Review Request: nodejs-read-all-stream - Read all stream content and pass it to callback
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171235
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
License in srpm differs from upstream, please download license from upstream
and rebuild srpm before pushing to SCM
APPROVED
cat nodejs-read-all-stream/diff.txt
diff -U2 -r
/home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-read-all-stream/upstream-unpacked/Source1/license
/home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-read-all-stream/srpm-unpacked/license-extract/license
---
/home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-read-all-stream/upstream-unpacked/Source1/license
2014-12-07 19:17:01.262835277 +0100
+++
/home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-read-all-stream/srpm-unpacked/license-extract/license
2014-12-07 19:17:01.281835488 +0100
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
The MIT License (MIT)
-Copyright (c) Vsevolod Strukchinsky floatd...@gmail.com
+Copyright (c) Sindre Sorhus sindresor...@gmail.com (sindresorhus.com)
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in
the spec URL.
Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-
read-all-stream/diff.txt
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL
= 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:
Unknown or generated. 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-read-all-
stream/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 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 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]: 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]: 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]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream,
[Bug 1171235] Review Request: nodejs-read-all-stream - Read all stream content and pass it to callback
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171235 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171239] Review Request: nodejs-posix-get - POSIX-style getopt() for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171239
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
APPROVED
= 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/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-
posix-getopt/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.
[x]: 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 30720 bytes in 4 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 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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
[Bug 1171302] Review Request: nodejs-sentence-case - Sentence case a string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171302 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1171341 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171341 [Bug 1171341] Review Request: nodejs-dot-case - Dot case a string -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171341] Review Request: nodejs-dot-case - Dot case a string
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171341 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1171302 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171302 [Bug 1171302] Review Request: nodejs-sentence-case - Sentence case a string -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141903] Review Request: php-horde-horde-lz4 - Horde LZ4 Compression Extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141903 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141903] Review Request: php-horde-horde-lz4 - Horde LZ4 Compression Extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141903 --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 965604 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=965604action=edit phpcomatinfo.log phpcompatinfo version 2.26.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141903] Review Request: php-horde-horde-lz4 - Horde LZ4 Compression Extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141903 --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 965605 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=965605action=edit fedora-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1141903 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141903] Review Request: php-horde-horde-lz4 - Horde LZ4 Compression Extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141903 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- No blockers. = APPROVED = -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141529] Review Request: php-horde-passwd - Horde password changing application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141529 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141529] Review Request: php-horde-passwd - Horde password changing application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141529 --- Comment #1 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 965606 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=965606action=edit phpcompatinfo.log phpcompatinfo version 2.26.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141529] Review Request: php-horde-passwd - Horde password changing application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141529 --- Comment #2 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 965607 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=965607action=edit fedora-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1141529 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141529] Review Request: php-horde-passwd - Horde password changing application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141529
Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com ---
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
As usual, remove EPEL 5 bits after initial import.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/passwd/conf.xml
%attr(0660,apache,apache) %config %{_sysconfdir}/horde/%{pear_name}/*.xml
Since the permission of this config file is 0660 instead of 0640, it
implies that this file can be edited by end-users. However, without
%config(noreplace) end-users' edits would be lost.
Just a warning, but you may want to address this.
No blockers.
= APPROVED =
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141528] Review Request: php-horde-mnemo - A web based notes manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141528 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|shawn.iwin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141528] Review Request: php-horde-mnemo - A web based notes manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141528 --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 965619 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=965619action=edit phpcompatinfo.log phpcompatinfo version 2.26.0 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141528] Review Request: php-horde-mnemo - A web based notes manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141528 --- Comment #4 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Created attachment 965620 -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=965620action=edit fedora-review.txt Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1141528 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, PHP, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141528] Review Request: php-horde-mnemo - A web based notes manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141528
Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com ---
[!]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[!]: Buildroot is not present
Note: Buildroot: present but not needed
[!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: %clean present but not required
As usual, remove EPEL 5 bits after initial import.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/horde/mnemo/conf.xml
%attr(0660,apache,apache) %config %{_sysconfdir}/horde/%{pear_name}/*.xml
Since the permission of this config file is 0660 instead of 0640, it
implies that this file can be edited by end-users. However, without
%config(noreplace) end-users' edits would be lost.
Just a warning, but you may want to address this.
No blockers.
= APPROVED =
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1162993] (statismo) Review Request: statismo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1162993 Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||anto.tra...@gmail.com Blocks||177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande anto.tra...@gmail.com --- This is not right way to review a package. Please, read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171227] Review Request: nodejs-langdetect - Language detection library for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171227
Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com ---
APPROVED,
Fails to install in fedora-review because unicode-7.0.0 is not yet pushed. Is
there anyway to include missing deps in fedora-review?
Issues:
===
- Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
= 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:
Unknown or generated. 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/nodejs-langdetect/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 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 %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 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]: 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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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 files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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)
[Bug 1147817] Review Request: php53-getid3 - The PHP media file parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147817 Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Shawn Iwinski shawn.iwin...@gmail.com --- I'm not sure if this is a SourceForge issue or not, but I get the following when trying to fedora-review/mock build this package for review: INFO: Downloading (Source0): http://downloads.sourceforge.net/getid3/getID3-1.9.8-20140511.zip WARNING: Cannot download url: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/getid3/getID3-1.9.8-20140511.zip INFO: No upstream for (Source0): getID3-1.9.8-20140511.zip -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171229] Review Request: nodejs-rc - Hardwired configuration loader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171229 Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||piotr1...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|piotr1...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1...@gmail.com --- package seems to be multi licensed, please specify all licenses: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios Requires: can be left out, they are automatically included from package.json -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1167076] Review Request: jlibrtp - Java library for the Real-Time Transport Protocol (RTP)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1167076 --- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Release #2. Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jlibrtp/jlibrtp.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/jlibrtp/jlibrtp-0.2.2-2.20141206svn255.fc20.src.rpm koji/mock rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8319614 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171166] Review Request: perl-Inline-Module - Support for Inline-based CPAN extension modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171166 Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||emman...@seyman.fr Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|emman...@seyman.fr --- Comment #1 from Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr --- Taking. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171166] Review Request: perl-Inline-Module - Support for Inline-based CPAN extension modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171166 Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171166] Review Request: perl-Inline-Module - Support for Inline-based CPAN extension modules
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171166
Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Emmanuel Seyman emman...@seyman.fr ---
=== KEY ===
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines including the Perl specific items
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported architecture.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8319958
[x] Rpmlint output: FIXME
[x] Package is not relocatable.
[x] Buildroot is correct
None specified, default used
[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.
License type: GPL+ or Artistic
[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 or %license.
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
620fed830db2b75a34c07e4bf388961d Inline-Module-0.17.tar.gz
[x] Package is not known to require ExcludeArch
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The spec file handles locales properly.
[-] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-] Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x] Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-] Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-] Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[!] Latest version is packaged.
Version 0.18 came out today (2014-12-07). Feel free to update your package.
[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] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
[x] Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8319958
[?] Package functions as described.
[-] Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files is correct.
[-] File based requires are sane.
[x] %check is present and the tests pass
All tests successful.
Files=3, Tests=2, 0 wallclock secs ( 0.02 usr 0.01 sys + 0.12 cusr 0.02
csys = 0.17 CPU)
Result: PASS
Please file a bug in upstream's bug-tracker requesting a man page for
/usr/bin/perl-inline-module.
APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171229] Review Request: nodejs-rc - Hardwired configuration loader
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171229 --- Comment #2 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thanks for catching it. I missed somehow. Added all 3 licenses now. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/nodejs-rc.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/nodejs-rc-0.5.4-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171235] Review Request: nodejs-read-all-stream - Read all stream content and pass it to callback
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171235 --- Comment #3 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- sorry for this confusion. I have fixed this in below update. no release bump. Spec URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SPECS/nodejs-read-all-stream.spec SRPM URL: https://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/SRPMS/nodejs-read-all-stream-0.1.2-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171235] Review Request: nodejs-read-all-stream - Read all stream content and pass it to callback
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171235 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thank you for this review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-read-all-stream Short Description: Read all stream content and pass it to callback Upstream URL: https://github.com/floatdrop/read-all-stream Owners: pnemade Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171239] Review Request: nodejs-posix-get - POSIX-style getopt() for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171239 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thank you for this review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-posix-get Short Description: POSIX-style getopt() for Node.js Upstream URL: https://github.com/davepacheco/node-getopt Owners: pnemade Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171227] Review Request: nodejs-langdetect - Language detection library for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171227 Parag pnem...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Parag pnem...@redhat.com --- Thank you for this review. You can make it pass provided you have setup your own local repository on your hard disk. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-langdetect Short Description: Language detection library for Node.js Upstream URL: https://github.com/newmsz/node-language-detection Owners: pnemade Branches: f19 f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171553] New: Review Request: csvdiff - Generate a diff between two CSV files on the command-line
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171553 Bug ID: 1171553 Summary: Review Request: csvdiff - Generate a diff between two CSV files on the command-line Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: williamjmore...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/csvdiff.spec SRPM URL: https://williamjmorenor.fedorapeople.org/rpmdev/csvdiff-0.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Generate a diff between two CSV files on the command-line Fedora Account System Username: williamjmorenor Koji Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8320717 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141903] Review Request: php-horde-horde-lz4 - Horde LZ4 Compression Extension
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141903 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-horde-lz4 Short Description: Horde LZ4 Compression Extension Upstream URL: http://www.horde.org Owners: remi Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141529] Review Request: php-horde-passwd - Horde password changing application
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141529 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-passwd Short Description: Horde password changing application Upstream URL: http://www.horde.org/apps/passwd Owners: remi Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1141528] Review Request: php-horde-mnemo - A web based notes manager
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1141528 Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Thanks again! The xml file is not config file, but reference file used to generate the real config (*.php). I will fix the perm. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: php-horde-mnemo Short Description: A web based notes manager Upstream URL: http://www.horde.org/apps/mnemo Owners: remi Branches: f20 f21 el6 epel7 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1147817] Review Request: php53-getid3 - The PHP media file parser
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147817 --- Comment #4 from Remi Collet fed...@famillecollet.com --- Looks like a temporary issue (or issue with FR... as this URL raise various redirections) $ spectool -g -S php53-getid3.spec Getting http://downloads.sourceforge.net/getid3/getID3-1.9.8-20140511.zip to ./getID3-1.9.8-20140511.zip % Total% Received % Xferd Average Speed TimeTime Time Current Dload Upload Total SpentLeft Speed 0 4080 00 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 0 3790 00 0 0 0 --:--:-- --:--:-- --:--:-- 0 100 534k 100 534k0 0 261k 0 0:00:02 0:00:02 --:--:-- 404k -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096072] Review Request: nodejs-sprintf - JavaScript sprintf implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096072 --- Comment #11 from anish apa...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: nodejs-sprintf New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: anishpatil InitialCC: i18n-team -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096072] Review Request: nodejs-sprintf - JavaScript sprintf implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096072 anish apa...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096184] Review Request: nodejs-i18n-transform - i18n transforms to a json object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096184 --- Comment #9 from anish apa...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: nodejs-i18n-transform New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: anishpatil InitialCC: i18n-team -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1096184] Review Request: nodejs-i18n-transform - i18n transforms to a json object
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1096184 anish apa...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1086217] Review Request: nodejs-strip-json-comments - Strip comments from JSON
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086217 anish apa...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|needinfo?(apa...@redhat.com |fedora-cvs? |) fedora-cvs+ | --- Comment #15 from anish apa...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: nodejs-strip-json-comments New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: anishpatil InitialCC: i18n-team -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1086231] Review Request: nodejs-jsonparse - Pure-js JSON streaming parser for node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086231 anish apa...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #14 from anish apa...@redhat.com --- Package Change Request == Package Name: nodejs-jsonparse New Branches: el6 epel7 Owners: anishpatil InitialCC: i18n-team -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1171205] Review Request: perl-Monitoring-Plugin - Family of modules to streamline writing plugins for various monitoring systems
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1171205 Jitka Plesnikova jples...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||jples...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jples...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1164486] Review Request: nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder - Helpers to build forms in Leaflet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164486 Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||msu...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msu...@redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com --- Taking -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1086245] Review Request: nodejs-jsonstream -streaming JSON.parse and stringify for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086245 --- Comment #11 from anish apa...@redhat.com --- Thank you for your comments, please find new review attached, Spec URL: http://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-jsonstream.spec SRPM URL: http://anishpatil.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-JSONStream-0.10.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Streaming JSON.parse and stringify for Node.js Fedora Account System Username:anishpatil -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1086245] Review Request: nodejs-jsonstream -streaming JSON.parse and stringify for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1086245 --- Comment #12 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- The Name: nodejs-JSONStream in the spec should be the lower case name, so that the resulting packages have a name that matches the spec. Other than that it looks good. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1164486] Review Request: nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder - Helpers to build forms in Leaflet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164486
Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com ---
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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in js-leaflet-
formbuilder
[?]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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 =
[Bug 1164486] Review Request: nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder - Helpers to build forms in Leaflet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164486 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-leaflet-formbuilder Short Description: Helpers to build forms in Leaflet Upstream URL: https://github.com/yohanboniface/Leaflet.FormBuilder Owners: tomh Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC: jamielinux -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
