Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=911186
--- Comment #4 from Jamie Nguyen <[email protected]> --- Thanks again Tom for all of the thorough reviews you're doing, picking up things that I really should have picked up myself! > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. > lib/browser/diff.js - looks like it may have been copied It was indeed copied from nodejs-diff. I've symlinked the real diff.js into lib/browser/diff.js. > [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > The png files in images are used by _mocha.js Fixed. > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > The .html and .jade files in lib should be in %{_datadir} I think these templates are used in the same way as images/ directory so I'm hesitating to move them. Which guidelines may I ask? > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > lib/browser/diff.js - what does the missing license.txt say? No longer a problem as I've removed the bundled diff.js. > [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > mocha.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary _mocha > mocha.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mocha > > One final observation - do we really want _mocha in /usr/bin > or should that just be in the node module bin dir? I've added a man page and sent a pull request upstream. (I'll also send a pull request for the expresso man page too.) I've removed /usr/bin/_mocha and refer to only /usr/bin/mocha in the man page. Also the zero-length files appear to be stubs and should probably be left there. Spec URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/mocha.spec SRPM URL: http://jamielinux.fedorapeople.org/mocha/SRPMS/mocha-1.8.1-3.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=uen9aZw6ZD&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
