[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817

Peter Robinson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|1269538 (IoT)   |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817

Peter Robinson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1387531 (Node-RED)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1387531
[Bug 1387531] Package tracker for supporting Node-RED
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 CC||piotr1...@gmail.com
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2015-12-20 12:23:43



--- Comment #15 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
built in rawhide, closing to unblock other nodejs review request bugs.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-css-what-2.0.2-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-css-what'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-2b03c6d08c

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-css-what-2.0.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'yum --enablerepo=epel-testing update nodejs-css-what'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-27e9cce726

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-css-what-2.0.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0e6d40f953

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-css-what-2.0.2-2.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-27e9cce726

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-css-what-2.0.2-2.el6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 6.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-2b03c6d08c

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
nodejs-css-what-2.0.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update nodejs-css-what'
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-0e6d40f953

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817

Parag AN(पराग)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||panem...@gmail.com



--- Comment #8 from Parag AN(पराग)  ---
I see that this package is also built for F23, el6, el7 but not submitted to
testing repositories yet. Any plans to do that soon?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/nodejs-css-what

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817



--- Comment #5 from Tom Hughes  ---
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: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1271817-nodejs-css-
 what/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:
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
 Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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 

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #6 from Tom Hughes  ---
There's an rpmlimit warning:

nodejs-css-what.src:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 17, tab:
line 6)

Other than that it all looks good now, so package approved.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817



--- Comment #4 from Jared Smith  ---
Yeah, I was still learning the ropes on NodeJS packaging when I submitted this
review -- I've learned a lot in the past couple of weeks :-)

Please find the updated spec and SRPM below:


Spec URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-css-what/nodejs-css-what.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jsmith.fedorapeople.org/Packaging/nodejs-css-what/nodejs-css-what-2.0.2-2.fc23.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||t...@compton.nu
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|t...@compton.nu
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
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: "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed
 output of licensecheck in /home/tom/1271817-nodejs-css-
 what/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.
[!]: 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:
[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).
[?]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: 

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817



--- Comment #3 from Tom Hughes  ---
Sorry, did the review before actually looking at the bug...

Agree with what Troy said though - only issue is that we aren't running the
tests and the BR on mocha is not required.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817

Troy Dawson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tdaw...@redhat.com



--- Comment #1 from Troy Dawson  ---
Please put the tests in (using dl-tests.sh, like you have in other packages.)
The tests do not need mocha, just nodejs.
  node tests/test.js

Summary:
 - Add tests
 - remove BuildRequires: mocha

Do these two things and I'll do the review.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1271817] Review Request: nodejs-css-what - A CSS selector parser

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271817

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||956806 (nodejs-reviews),
   ||1269538 (IoT), 1271795




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=1269538
[Bug 1269538] Tracker for IoT on Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271795
[Bug 1271795] Review Request: nodejs-css-select - A CSS selector
compiler/engine
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review