[Bug 1457291] Review Request: nodejs-decompress-response - Decompress a HTTP response if needed

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457291

Parag Nemade  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2017-06-02 00:10:58



--- Comment #6 from Parag Nemade  ---
Built only in rawhide now.

-- 
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 1457291] Review Request: nodejs-decompress-response - Decompress a HTTP response if needed

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457291



--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/nodejs-decompress-response

-- 
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 1457291] Review Request: nodejs-decompress-response - Decompress a HTTP response if needed

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457291

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Jared Smith  ---
Package is 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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1457291] Review Request: nodejs-decompress-response - Decompress a HTTP response if needed

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457291



--- Comment #3 from Parag Nemade  ---
I can't find any difference between spec file in SRPM and SPEC URL.

Also, mock build on my f26 machine is successful. And here is another
successful koji scratch build
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19793741

-- 
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 1457291] Review Request: nodejs-decompress-response - Decompress a HTTP response if needed

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457291

Jared Smith  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jsmith.fed...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Jared Smith  ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===

 - The spec file in the SRPM doesn't seem to match the one listed in the bug.

= 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have
 unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/jsmith/Documents/Personal/Reviews/1457291-nodejs-decompress-
 response/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.
[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]: 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]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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 

[Bug 1457291] Review Request: nodejs-decompress-response - Decompress a HTTP response if needed

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1457291



--- Comment #1 from Parag Nemade  ---
This package built on koji: 
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=19792935

-- 
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