[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||zbys...@in.waw.pl Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|ibove...@redhat.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668 Igor Gnatenko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2016-08-14 12:02:32 -- 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 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-rhea -- 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 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668 Irina Boverman changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668
--- Comment #14 from Alan Conway ---
Package review below. There is one minor issue: the LICENSE file should be
marked %license in the spec file, not %doc.
One other minor thing: I think the requirement for npm 2.0.0 might be
needlessly high. I'm on fedora 23 with npm-1.3.6-8.fc23.noarch, things seemed
to work. Unless there's a definite reason for putting the dependency so high,
it might be worth lowering.
Otherwise I consider this a PASS.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
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 not marked as %license
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
= 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache
(v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /home/aconway/fedora/review/nodejs-rhea/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.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 133120 bytes in 38 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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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
[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668 --- Comment #13 from Alan Conway --- Agreed, I can't see why it is considered a devel package except maybe over-enthusiastic pattern matching on "debug". (In reply to Irina Boverman from comment #6) > If I use nodejs-rhea-devel package name instead of nodejs-rhea, these is no > longer this error: > nodejs-rhea.noarch: E: devel-dependency nodejs-debug > > But I think nodejs-rhea is correct, as it provides run time dependencies for > client applications. Stick with nodejs-rhea and ignore the devel-dependency error. -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668 Alan Conway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||g...@redhat.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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668 Irina Boverman 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668 --- Comment #5 from Irina Boverman --- Removed tests from RPM: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/irina/nodejs-rhea/packages/ About *broken* symlink, it is not broken, when dependencies are installed, the symlink resolves correctly: ls -l /usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/node_modules/debug lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 27 May 6 10:11 /usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/node_modules/debug -> /usr/lib/node_modules/debug ls -l /usr/lib/node_modules/debug total 24 -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 3763 May 9 2015 browser.js -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 4096 Aug 20 2014 debug.js -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 4758 Mar 13 2015 node.js drwxr-xr-x. 2 root root 4096 Apr 21 16:46 node_modules -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 684 May 10 2015 package.json I checked other nodejs packages, they have the same issue reported by rpmlint. For example: # rpmlint nodejs-debug nodejs-debug.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-debug.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/debug/node_modules/ms /usr/lib/node_modules/ms 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Latest rpmlint result: # rpmlint nodejs-rhea nodejs-rhea.noarch: E: devel-dependency nodejs-debug nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/node_modules/debug /usr/lib/node_modules/debug nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/share/doc/nodejs-rhea/examples/tls/ca-cert.pem nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/share/doc/nodejs-rhea/examples/tls/client-cert.pem nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/share/doc/nodejs-rhea/examples/tls/server-cert.pem 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. The spec file has these "requires": BuildRequires: nodejs-packaging BuildRequires: nodejs-debug BuildRequires: mocha Requires: nodejs-debug -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668 Alan Conway changed: What|Removed |Added CC||acon...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Alan Conway --- (In reply to Irina Boverman from comment #1) > nodejs-rhea.noarch: E: devel-dependency nodejs-debug > Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package > itself. Possibly we need a separate devel and runtime package. Examples, developer doc, debugging tools and tests should not be part of a runtime package. However nodejs conventions may override here - Gordon's call. > nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. > > nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate > /usr/share/doc/nodejs-rhea/examples/tls/ca-cert.pem > Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default > configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this > is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up > to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, > so > ignore this warning if this is the case. example/doc/tests are not normally allowed in runtime packages, so again maybe a seprate -devel package? > /usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/test/server-cert.pem > Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default > configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this > is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up > to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, > so > ignore this warning if this is the case. Again tests in a runtime package is very strange, but maybe normal in the nodejs world. Suggest digging around a few popular nodejs RPMs to see what is normal. > nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: dangling-symlink > /usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/node_modules/debug /usr/lib/node_modules/debug Delete the symlink, that is just an error. > Alan, Gordon, what do you think? -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1329668] Review Request: nodejs-rhea -reactive AMQP 1.0 library.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1329668 --- Comment #1 from Irina Boverman --- Rebased to 0.1.2. Added %check section and tests. SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/irina/nodejs-rhea/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/00183010-nodejs-rhea/ Output of rpmlint: $ rpmlint -i nodejs-rhea-0.1.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm nodejs-rhea.noarch: E: devel-dependency nodejs-debug Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share. nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/share/doc/nodejs-rhea/examples/tls/ca-cert.pem Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so ignore this warning if this is the case. nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/share/doc/nodejs-rhea/examples/tls/server-cert.pem Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so ignore this warning if this is the case. nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/test/server-cert.pem Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so ignore this warning if this is the case. nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/share/doc/nodejs-rhea/examples/tls/client-cert.pem Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so ignore this warning if this is the case. nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/test/ca-cert.pem Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so ignore this warning if this is the case. nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: pem-certificate /usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/test/client-cert.pem Shipping a PEM certificate is likely wrong. If used for the default configuration, this is insecure ( since the certificate is public ). If this is used for validation, ie a CA certificate store, then this must be kept up to date due to CA compromise. The only valid reason is for testing purpose, so ignore this warning if this is the case. nodejs-rhea.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/rhea/node_modules/debug /usr/lib/node_modules/debug The target of the symbolic link does not exist within this package or its file based dependencies. Verify spelling of the link target and that the target is included in a package in this package's dependency chain. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Not sure if I need to do anything about them... Alan, Gordon, what do you think? -- 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 http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
