[Bug 1290576] Review Request: nodejs-json-schema - JSON Schema specifications, reference schemas, and a CommonJS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290576

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
Last Closed||2018-07-30 05:06:47



-- 
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
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/7DCLDT2AX2Y7GO6TKJ3SF3RG6MXQKD75/

[Bug 1290576] Review Request: nodejs-json-schema - JSON Schema specifications, reference schemas, and a CommonJS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290576



--- Comment #6 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
Tom,

I don't expect I will be able to work on this module soon. Not sure if I should
close this request or keep it open. 

This is needed for update of http-signature bug: #1179226

-- 
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 1290576] Review Request: nodejs-json-schema - JSON Schema specifications, reference schemas, and a CommonJS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290576



--- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
I will try to patch it but have higher priorities at the moment (review of
lodash, more missing modules for updating http-signature).

-- 
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 1290576] Review Request: nodejs-json-schema - JSON Schema specifications, reference schemas, and a CommonJS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290576



--- Comment #4 from Tom Hughes  ---
It doesn't seem very alive, does it, and it's hard to know what license we
could specify... I guess "MIT and (AFL or BSD)" or something?!?

As you say, jsprim appears to support both, and patching it would just be
changing the "main" entry point in package.json to point at the other file I
think?

-- 
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 1290576] Review Request: nodejs-json-schema - JSON Schema specifications, reference schemas, and a CommonJS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290576

Piotr Popieluch  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1290577




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290577
[Bug 1290577] Review Request: nodejs-jsprim - Utilities for primitive
JavaScript types
-- 
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 1290576] Review Request: nodejs-json-schema - JSON Schema specifications, reference schemas, and a CommonJS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290576

Piotr Popieluch  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
-- 
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 1290576] Review Request: nodejs-json-schema - JSON Schema specifications, reference schemas, and a CommonJS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290576

Tom Hughes  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #1 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.
[!]: 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)", "AFL-2.1", "Unknown or generated". 31
 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/tom/1290576-nodejs-json-schema/licensecheck.txt
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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 

[Bug 1290576] Review Request: nodejs-json-schema - JSON Schema specifications, reference schemas, and a CommonJS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290576



--- Comment #2 from Tom Hughes  ---
So we need to figure out what the licensing actually is, because package.json
says one thing but the comments in the source say something else.

The schemas should be moved in ${_datadir} per guidelines.

Finally, what's going on with the tests? There are some but they don't seem to
work as they use an assert.length that no version of node seems to have?

-- 
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 1290576] Review Request: nodejs-json-schema - JSON Schema specifications, reference schemas, and a CommonJS implementation

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1290576



--- Comment #3 from Piotr Popieluch  ---
This whole module confuses me. Upstream seems to be dead. I'm wondering if it
wouldn't be better to patch jsprim to use JSV instead of json-schema. 

There are tests in jsprim which test with JSV. JSV is slower but is already
packaged.
See
https://github.com/davepacheco/node-jsprim/blob/master/test/validate-bench.js#L1-L15

-- 
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