[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||mocha-1.10.0-1.el6 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mocha-1.10.0-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ox8dagP63Oa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 --- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mocha-1.10.0-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mocha-1.10.0-1.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ujDNHy15PGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Xpw9589IXna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 --- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mocha-1.8.2-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cISOOuUEjUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-03-22 02:35:21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VDkImUB8psa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XmW1VwL8QUa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mocha-1.8.2-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=heK5RC9MLpa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 --- Comment #13 from Pavol Babinčák pbabi...@redhat.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=m4TpWASw6Fa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DN0q7co7cha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- mocha-1.8.2-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mocha-1.8.2-3.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MbvTYJvWv3a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Bug 911186 depends on bug 910124, which changed state. Bug 910124 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-debug - A small debugging utility for Node.js https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910124 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zCr27fgSj4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Bug 911186 depends on bug 910119, which changed state. Bug 910119 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-commander - Node.js command-line interfaces made easy https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=910119 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IHNQsSYdSma=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Bug 911186 depends on bug 911177, which changed state. Bug 911177 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-diff - A JavaScript text diff implementation for Node.js https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911177 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VLlpOKISoSa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Bug 911186 depends on bug 911183, which changed state. Bug 911183 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-jade - Jade template engine for Node.js https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911183 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xEaHWTQjK6a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Bug 911186 depends on bug 911181, which changed state. Bug 911181 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-growl - Growl unobtrusive notifications for Node.js https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911181 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LejaNECKLJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Bug 911186 depends on bug 911187, which changed state. Bug 911187 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-ms - Tiny milliseconds conversion utility for Node.js https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911187 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZKLoQuc3jVa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186
--- Comment #7 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Oops, it seems I forgot about this review request.
* Tue Mar 19 2013 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org - 1.8.2-1
- update to upstream release 0.8.2
- move images and templates to %%{_datadir} to comply with packaging
guidelines
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/mocha.spec
SRPM URL:
http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/mocha-1.8.2-1.fc18.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JEDgp8Jusoa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 --- Comment #8 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Fix symlinks. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/mocha.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/mocha-1.8.2-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Vfhufd07dha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186
--- Comment #9 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
Rpmlint issues:
mocha.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8.2-1 ['1.8.2-2.fc20',
'1.8.2-2']
mocha.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/browser/path.js
mocha.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/lib/node_modules/mocha/lib/browser/fs.js
Also there is a typo in the changelog - it says 0.8.2 but means 1.8.2
= 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]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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 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
[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).
= 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.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]:
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 --- Comment #10 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Fix incorrect %changelog entries. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/mocha.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/mocha-1.8.2-3.fc18.src.rpm It seems these zero-byte files are deliberate so perhaps it's better to leave them as they are: https://github.com/visionmedia/mocha/commit/f5c482b218e11cfebb11f20bfb819140152eb44c -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=38bnCVDWTna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Agreed. Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ktNBhfz9lPa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #12 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mocha Short Description: A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js Owners: jamielinux Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=c6dMnF5KNea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186
--- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org ---
Thanks again Tom for all of the thorough reviews you're doing, picking up
things that I really should have picked up myself!
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
lib/browser/diff.js - looks like it may have been copied
It was indeed copied from nodejs-diff. I've symlinked the real diff.js into
lib/browser/diff.js.
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
The png files in images are used by _mocha.js
Fixed.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
The .html and .jade files in lib should be in %{_datadir}
I think these templates are used in the same way as images/ directory so I'm
hesitating to move them. Which guidelines may I ask?
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
lib/browser/diff.js - what does the missing license.txt say?
No longer a problem as I've removed the bundled diff.js.
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
mocha.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary _mocha
mocha.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mocha
One final observation - do we really want _mocha in /usr/bin
or should that just be in the node module bin dir?
I've added a man page and sent a pull request upstream. (I'll also send a pull
request for the expresso man page too.) I've removed /usr/bin/_mocha and refer
to only /usr/bin/mocha in the man page.
Also the zero-length files appear to be stubs and should probably be left
there.
Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/mocha.spec
SRPM URL:
http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/mocha-1.8.1-3.fc18.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=uen9aZw6ZDa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 --- Comment #5 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- I wrote: Which guidelines may I ask? Ah ok, you must be talking about this: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Node.js#Installing_Modules -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=d8DljrvMRoa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 --- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- That's the one, yes. Sorry I wasn't clearer... BTW if you fancy returning the favour I've got some node related review requests of my own open ;-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=WfG4su8Ksea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186
Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||t...@compton.nu
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
lib/browser/diff.js - looks like it may have been copied
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
The png files in images are used by _mocha.js
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
The .html and .jade files in lib should be in %{_datadir}
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
lib/browser/diff.js - what does the missing license.txt say?
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
mocha.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary _mocha
mocha.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mocha
One final observation - do we really want _mocha in /usr/bin or should
that just be in the node module bin dir?
= 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[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)
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: mocha - A |nodejs-mocha - A simple,|simple, flexible, fun test |flexible, fun test |framework for Node.js |framework for Node.js | --- Comment #1 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Renamed from nodejs-mocha to just mocha. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/mocha.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/mocha-1.8.1-1.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CxnMJvH8bCa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 911186] Review Request: mocha - A simple, flexible, fun test framework for Node.js
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186 --- Comment #2 from Jamie Nguyen jamieli...@fedoraproject.org --- Oops typo in the SRPM link. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/mocha.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/mocha-1.8.1-2.fc18.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cGFOODS5OFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
