Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 1243782 - Review Request: nodejs-process-nextick-args - The process.nextTick() but always with args
Summary: Review Request: nodejs-process-nextick-args - The process.nextTick() but alwa...
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Zuzana Svetlikova
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: nodejs-reviews
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2015-07-16 09:48 UTC by Parag Nemade
Modified: 2015-08-07 12:45 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2015-08-07 12:45:46 UTC
zsvetlik: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Parag Nemade 2015-07-16 09:48:09 UTC
Spec URL:

Always be able to pass arguments to process.nextTick, no matter the platform.

Comment 1 Parag Nemade 2015-07-16 09:48:16 UTC
This package built on koji:

Comment 2 Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-07-16 10:33:55 UTC
Looks fine, but the package is missing license.

Package Review

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

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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]: 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/kasicka/fedora-review/1243782-nodejs-
[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
[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. 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]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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
[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
[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
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

[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.

Checking: nodejs-process-nextick-args-1.0.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
nodejs-process-nextick-args.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nextTick -> next Tick, next-tick, necktie
nodejs-process-nextick-args.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nextTick -> next Tick, next-tick, necktie
nodejs-process-nextick-args.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
nodejs-process-nextick-args.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) nextTick -> next Tick, next-tick, necktie
nodejs-process-nextick-args.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US nextTick -> next Tick, next-tick, necktie
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
nodejs-process-nextick-args.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

nodejs-process-nextick-args (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
---------------- :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : c711d03a1912f43642e8a8b1e2c4ba0800a3275b669fdda7df9780315b4f6f87
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c711d03a1912f43642e8a8b1e2c4ba0800a3275b669fdda7df9780315b4f6f87

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1243782
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

Comment 3 Parag Nemade 2015-07-17 12:45:12 UTC
Upstream release 1.0.2 version but forgot to tag it, I have now used as source1 and updated this package.

Spec URL:

Comment 4 Zuzana Svetlikova 2015-07-18 08:55:23 UTC
Looks fine now, APPROVED.

Comment 5 Parag Nemade 2015-07-20 06:38:59 UTC
Thank you Zuzana for this package review.

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: nodejs-process-nextick-args
Short Description: The process.nextTick() but always with args
Upstream URL:
Owners: pnemade
Branches: f21 f22 f23

Comment 6 Kevin Fenzi 2015-07-20 17:23:44 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Parag Nemade 2015-08-07 12:45:46 UTC
built in rawhide.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.