https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2333620
Benson Muite <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #19 from Benson Muite <[email protected]> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Dist tag is present. - 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. Note: License file license.js is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text ===== 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", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 3", "*No copyright* ISC License and/or MIT License", "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "*No copyright* Academic Free License v3.0 and/or Apache License 2.0", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "ISC License", "*No copyright* ISC License". 311 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/eask/review- eask/licensecheck.txt [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/node_modules [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [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. [ ]: 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 10908 bytes in 1 files. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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. ===== 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: eask-0.12.6-2.fc45.noarch.rpm eask-0.12.6-2.fc45.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp0mp3dqrn')] checks: 32, packages: 2 eask.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/lisp/extern/package-build/README.md eask.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/color-name/README.md eask.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib eask.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eask eask.spec: W: no-%build-section eask.spec: W: invalid-url Source1: @emacs-eask-cli-0.12.6-nm-prod.tgz eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules/.bin eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/.bin eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/.bin eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/.package-lock.json eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/require-directory/.jshintrc eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/require-directory/.npmignore eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/require-directory/.travis.yml 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings, 27 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.6 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 eask.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/lisp/extern/package-build/README.md eask.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/color-name/README.md eask.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib eask.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary eask eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules/.bin eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/.bin eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/.bin eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/.package-lock.json eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/require-directory/.jshintrc eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/require-directory/.npmignore eask.noarch: W: hidden-file-or-dir /usr/lib/node_modules/eask/node_modules_prod/require-directory/.travis.yml 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://registry.npmjs.org/@emacs-eask/cli/-/cli-0.12.6.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 51ea82efd3dbae6cd9689f5850c8895a7e2dccf6d16b942372c9f86e1036d656 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 51ea82efd3dbae6cd9689f5850c8895a7e2dccf6d16b942372c9f86e1036d656 Using local file /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/eask/@emacs-eask-cli-0.12.6-nm-prod.tgz as upstream file:///home/fedora-packaging/reviews/eask/@emacs-eask-cli-0.12.6-nm-prod.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d2cd79b328508dd6c576de85712bc57e25fb262c8a5e908a6d4fe273025c708a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d2cd79b328508dd6c576de85712bc57e25fb262c8a5e908a6d4fe273025c708a Using local file /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/eask/@emacs-eask-cli-0.12.6-bundled-licenses.txt as upstream file:///home/fedora-packaging/reviews/eask/@emacs-eask-cli-0.12.6-bundled-licenses.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 99de90bb8d79ecc83d9ad5d89a7c593b2b70d83371000ff9756d419a1051e6d6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 99de90bb8d79ecc83d9ad5d89a7c593b2b70d83371000ff9756d419a1051e6d6 Requires -------- eask (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/node nodejs nodejs(engine) Provides -------- eask: bundled(nodejs-ansi-regex) bundled(nodejs-ansi-styles) bundled(nodejs-cliui) bundled(nodejs-color-convert) bundled(nodejs-color-name) bundled(nodejs-emoji-regex) bundled(nodejs-escalade) bundled(nodejs-get-caller-file) bundled(nodejs-is-fullwidth-code-point) bundled(nodejs-isexe) bundled(nodejs-require-directory) bundled(nodejs-string-width) bundled(nodejs-strip-ansi) bundled(nodejs-which) bundled(nodejs-wrap-ansi) bundled(nodejs-y18n) bundled(nodejs-yargs) bundled(nodejs-yargs-parser) eask npm(@emacs-eask/cli) Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n eask Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, Ocaml, fonts, R, SugarActivity, Java, Python, Haskell, C/C++, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) A few more files with wrong line endings, but otherwise seems ok. B) Approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2333620 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202333620%23c19 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
