[Bug 1191062] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191062

Didik Supriadi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(anish.developer@g |
   |mail.com)   |




-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1191062] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191062

Otto Urpelainen  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||otu...@iki.fi
 Blocks||201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
 Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
 Status|NEW |CLOSED
Last Closed||2021-08-10 04:55:21



--- Comment #7 from Otto Urpelainen  ---
Closing this review request since submitter account is disabled.



Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=201449
[Bug 201449] FE-DEADREVIEW -- Reviews stalled due to lack of submitter response
should be blocking this bug.
-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1191062] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191062

Didik Supriadi  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||didiksupriad...@gmail.com
  Flags||needinfo?(anish.developer@g
   ||mail.com)



--- Comment #6 from Didik Supriadi  ---
Seems like the submitter account is disabled (?), and please make sure you have
added the correct RHBZ (Red Hat Bugzilla) email.
I will be closing this package review if there is no response in a week.


-- 
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

needinfo canceled: [Bug 1191062] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions

[bugzilla]

Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review

Package Review  has canceled Package
Review 's request for Eduardo Mayorga
's needinfo:
Bug 1191062: Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and
comparison functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191062



--- Comment #5 from Package Review  ---
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script.

The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month.
As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1191062] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191062



--- Comment #3 from Eduardo Mayorga  ---
Any update?

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1191062] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191062

Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||e...@mayorgalinux.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|e...@mayorgalinux.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Eduardo Mayorga e...@mayorgalinux.com ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
===
- If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
  in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
  for the package is included in %license.
  Note: License file LICENSE is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
- ExclusiveArch tag is missing.
  See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js?rd=Node.js/Packagers#ExclusiveArch
- The description lines must not be longer than 79 characters.
- Why are the tests disabled? And these should not be included as %doc.


= MUST items =

Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
 Note: Use %license macro.
[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. 3 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/mayorga/1191062-nodejs-
 samsam/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 30720 bytes in 5 files.
[!]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
 translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
 

[Bug 1191062] Review Request: nodejs-samsam - Value identification and comparison functions

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191062

anish apa...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1191068




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1191068
[Bug 1191068] Review Request:  -  nodejs-formatio-Human-readable object
formatting
-- 
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