https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122232

Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1122239

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122239 [Bug 1122239] Review Request: nodejs-socks-proxy-agent - A SOCKS (v4a) proxy http.Agent implementation

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122232

Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |i@cicku.me Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |i@cicku.me

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122232

Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(i@cicku.me)

--- Comment #2 from Parag AN(पराग) panemade@gmail.com --- cicku, can you finish this review?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122232

Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng i@cicku.me --- Package Review ==============

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

===== 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. [-]: 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]: 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. [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: 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). [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. [-]: %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 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 (not strictly required in GL). [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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-rainbowsocks-0.1.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm nodejs-rainbowsocks-0.1.2-1.fc22.src.rpm nodejs-rainbowsocks.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-rainbowsocks.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/rainbowsocks/node_modules/debug /usr/lib/node_modules/debug 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint nodejs-rainbowsocks nodejs-rainbowsocks.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-rainbowsocks.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/rainbowsocks/node_modules/debug /usr/lib/node_modules/debug 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- nodejs-rainbowsocks (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(debug)

Provides -------- nodejs-rainbowsocks: nodejs-rainbowsocks npm(rainbowsocks)

Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/rainbowsocks/-/rainbowsocks-0.1.2.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 17e1d52ae57bc0071ea06b65907b19175d156f6cf43847af629ccb40dae80827 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 17e1d52ae57bc0071ea06b65907b19175d156f6cf43847af629ccb40dae80827

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn nodejs-rainbowsocks-0.1.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122232

Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #6 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: nodejs-rainbowsocks Short Description: SOCKS4a proxy client Upstream URL: https://www.npmjs.org/package/rainbowsocks Owners: ralph Branches: f21 f20 f19 epel7 InitialCC:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122232

--- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122232

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-rainbowsocks-0.1.2-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-rainbowsocks-0.1.2-1.fc20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122232

Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2014-08-18 13:51:39

--- Comment #10 from Ralph Bean rbean@redhat.com --- Buildroot overrides submitted.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1122232

--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-rainbowsocks-0.1.2-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.