https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172971

Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |piotr1212@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |piotr1212@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Piotr Popieluch piotr1212@gmail.com --- APPROVED

===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/piotr/rpmbuild/1172971-nodejs- duplexer/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 10240 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]: 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 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: [-]: 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]: 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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.fc22.src.rpm nodejs-duplexer.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@pontifex /]# rpmlint nodejs-duplexer nodejs-duplexer.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root@pontifex /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires -------- nodejs-duplexer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine)

Provides -------- nodejs-duplexer: nodejs-duplexer npm(duplexer)

Source checksums ---------------- http://registry.npmjs.org/duplexer/-/duplexer-0.1.1.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e970de93b55944f514569a97b5d134163db45fee7814315ff4ce9fa2f0a6312e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e970de93b55944f514569a97b5d134163db45fee7814315ff4ce9fa2f0a6312e

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1172971 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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=1172971

Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172971

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172971

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.el6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172971

--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.fc20

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172971

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172971

Parag pnemade@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2014-12-20 06:29:05

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172971

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.fc2 |nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.fc2 |1 |0

--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172971

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.el6 |nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.el7

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- nodejs-duplexer-0.1.1-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.