[Bug 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2016-05-27 16:56:32 --- Comment #12 from Piotr Popieluch --- in f24 and rawhide -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-deferred-0.7.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1a95bb0e2a -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-deferred-0.7.4-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6d83b9913d -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-deferred-0.7.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-7d1e7811c6 -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-deferred-0.7.4-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-1a95bb0e2a -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-deferred-0.7.4-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-7d1e7811c6 -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-deferred-0.7.4-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-6d83b9913d -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-deferred -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 --- Comment #4 from Piotr Popieluch --- Thanks will apply you suggestions. I'm actually packaging this to get tad in. -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes --- You might want to add a comment about the circular dependency in the test - this is tested using tad but tad uses this module. You could also add examples to %doc if you want. Other than that it all looks fine. -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047
--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 82 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1293047
-nodejs-deferred/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 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: 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]: 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]: 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 =
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Installation er
[Bug 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 Tom Hughes changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||t...@compton.nu Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Tom Hughes --- Corrected spec file link: Spec URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-deferred.spec SRPM URL: https://piotrp.fedorapeople.org/nodejs-deferred-0.7.4-1.fc24.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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1293053 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293053 [Bug 1293053] Review Request: nodejs-next - Functions that extend and complement Node.js API -- 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 1293047] Review Request: nodejs-deferred - Modular and fast Promises implementation for JavaScript
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1293047 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker -- 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
