https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444822

Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |956806 (nodejs-reviews)

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=956806 [Bug 956806] Node.js Review Tracker

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444822

Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tom@compton.nu Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tom@compton.nu Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes tom@compton.nu --- Package Review ==============

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

===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1444822 -nodejs-portfinder/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 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]: 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. [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: [-]: 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. [!]: %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/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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-portfinder-1.0.13-1.fc27.noarch.rpm nodejs-portfinder-1.0.13-1.fc27.src.rpm nodejs-portfinder.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-portfinder.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/portfinder/node_modules/mkdirp /usr/lib/node_modules/mkdirp nodejs-portfinder.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/portfinder/node_modules/debug /usr/lib/node_modules/debug nodejs-portfinder.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/portfinder/node_modules/async /usr/lib/node_modules/async 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory nodejs-portfinder.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib nodejs-portfinder.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/portfinder/node_modules/async /usr/lib/node_modules/async nodejs-portfinder.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/portfinder/node_modules/debug /usr/lib/node_modules/debug nodejs-portfinder.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/lib/node_modules/portfinder/node_modules/mkdirp /usr/lib/node_modules/mkdirp 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Requires -------- nodejs-portfinder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): nodejs(engine) npm(async) npm(debug) npm(mkdirp)

Provides -------- nodejs-portfinder: nodejs-portfinder npm(portfinder)

Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/portfinder/-/portfinder-1.0.13.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 340b2f6665d25438f27144678bcccb4e46902a29a292ca532f9145da4074cc84 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 340b2f6665d25438f27144678bcccb4e46902a29a292ca532f9145da4074cc84

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m compton-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1444822 Buildroot used: compton-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444822

--- Comment #4 from Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.com --- I think I used first github source, enabled tests and did koji scratch build but it hang on some test. I did not find time to work on finding the cause hence I added comment that "will enable test in future release" and fallback to npmjs tarball.

Spec URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-portfinder.spec SRPM URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-portfinder-1.0.13-2.fc26....

Waiting for koji scratch build to finish -> https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19383433

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444822

--- Comment #6 from Parag Nemade pnemade@redhat.com --- Thanks for the upstream fix. Here is updated package

Spec URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-portfinder.spec SRPM URL: http://pnemade.fedorapeople.org/fedora-work/nodejs-portfinder-1.0.13-3.fc26....

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444822

--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-portfinder