[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||nodejs-get-1.2.1-2.fc18 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-05-21 23:22:19 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-get-1.2.1-2.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=4LQrxVkPRRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |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=3ZK4caMtefa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-get-1.2.1-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-get-1.2.1-2.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=44xZCfhny5a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 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=RbSE6Ln8ioa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-get-1.2.1-2.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=I7T94o4nTaa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? | Flags||fedora-cvs+ -- 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=kkkGXGkCw0a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.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=Vohpyzk5BEa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929
Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||m...@zarb.org
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|m...@zarb.org
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org ---
Besides the issue with patches, which is not blocking, the package is good,
and so is approved. Can you add the 2 urls in comment ?
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= Notes =
- Patch1 and Patch0 have been pushed upstream, but should be documented
( especially since Patch1 break travis :/ )
= 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. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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 does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: 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).
[-]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: 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.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[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
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 --- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- Links added. The travis failures is only on node 0.4, presumably because the end() routine doesn't exist there - it is passing on 0.6 and without those calls added the tests fail on 0.10. Spec URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-get.spec SRPM URL: http://download.compton.nu/nodejs/nodejs-get-1.2.1-2.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=w4Raucc6qba=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Michael Scherer m...@zarb.org --- Damn, tought I set it to + already, sorry. So it should be good. -- 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=9rpkL7QqSea=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: nodejs-get Short Description: A slightly higher-level HTTP client for Node.js Owners: tomh Branches: f19 f18 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=sDJujOh2N9a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews) -- 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=XImYsb0Plha=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 957929] Review Request: nodejs-get - A slightly higher-level HTTP client for node
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957929 Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||957932 -- 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=wr7hHNoiXxa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
