[Bug 683463] Review Request: trafficserver - Apache Traffic Server

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=683463

--- Comment #2 from Zhao Yongming <ming.zym@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-03-11 07:36:22 EST ---
yeah, thanks for points out so many issues, I have put up my modified rpm in
the same location (same name)ï

cutdown rpmlint reporting to 3warning:
  [root@ts1 SPECS]# rpmlint
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/trafficserver-2.1.6-1.x86_64.rpm
  trafficserver.x86_64: W: hidden-file-or-dir
/etc/trafficserver/body_factory/default/.body_factory_info
  trafficserver.x86_64: W: log-files-without-logrotate /var/log/trafficserver
  trafficserver.x86_64: W: service-default-enabled /etc/init.d/trafficserver
  1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
  [root@ts1 SPECS]# rpmlint ../SRPMS/trafficserver-2.1.6-1.src.rpm 
  trafficserver.src:34: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %build echo  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
  trafficserver.src:51: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR
  trafficserver.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 18, tab:
line 3)
  1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
  [root@ts1 SPECS]# rpmlint
../RPMS/x86_64/trafficserver-devel-2.1.6-1.x86_64.rpm 
  trafficserver-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
  1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
  [root@ts1 SPECS]# 
my comment:
  hidden-file is really the trafficserver config
  logrotating, trafficserver do strict log rotating and very carefull of the
disk usage, that is by design.
  service-default-enabled, not started in any runlevel by default
  se-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR, how to avoid this error? I have no idea, as httpd is
doing the same too.


- why 2.1.6 unstable but not 2.0.1 stable?
  from my point, we should use v2.1.6 other than v2.0.1, we are more confidence
in v2.1.6 indeed.
  it will be the pre release of v3.0.

- Take out the "echo $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" from the spec; this looks like debugging
leftovers?
  that is because of our unstable release suffix in package name, may be
removed in V3.0 stable.

It will need some more work on tracking all requirement in official
ReviewGuidelines, just put a update and we are working on it.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]