[Bug 646686] Review Request: mod_xsendfile - Apache module to send files efficiently

[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=646686

Robert Scheck <redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |redhat-bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxxx
                   |                            |e
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck <redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-25 13:14:50 EDT ---
Okay, here we go:



[ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the 

         build produces. The output should be posted in the review.

$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/mod_xsendfile-*

mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xsendfile ->
landfill, defilement

mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sendfile -> send
file, send-file, Sendai

mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mmap -> map, m map,
Map

mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US php -> fp, pp, hp

mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl, peel,
perk

mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cgi -> cig, chi, cg

mod_xsendfile.src: W: invalid-license ASL2

cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn: No such file or directory

mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xsendfile ->
landfill, defilement

mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sendfile -> send
file, send-file, Sendai

mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mmap -> map, m
map, Map

mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US php -> fp, pp, hp

mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl,
peel, perk

mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cgi -> cig, chi,
cg

mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL2

mod_xsendfile-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xsendfile ->
landfill, defilement

mod_xsendfile-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
xsendfile -> landfill, defilement

mod_xsendfile-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL2

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings.

$

         -> Ignore spelling errors, aspell doesn't know these technical words

         -> License error is addressed below

         -> Ignore "cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn", that's fine for mod_*

[  OK  ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming 

         Guidelines.

[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the 

         format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.

[  ??  ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

[FAILED] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and 

         meet the Licensing Guidelines.

         -> Replace "ASL2" by "ASL 2.0"

[FAILED] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual 

         license.

         -> Replace "ASL2" by "ASL 2.0"

[  N/A ] MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.

[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

[  OK  ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 

[  OK  ] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream 

         source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for 

         this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, 

         please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.

         -> 4b83b0e1a0c043c4e76ee99685c35110  mod_xsendfile-0.12.tar.bz2

         -> 4b83b0e1a0c043c4e76ee99685c35110  mod_xsendfile-0.12.tar.bz2.1

[  OK  ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary

         rpms on at least one primary architecture.

[  N/A ] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on 

         an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the

         spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST

         have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package 

         does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST 

         be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.

[  OK  ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except 

         for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging 

         Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply 

         common sense.

[  N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by 

         using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly 

         forbidden.

[  N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared 

         library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's 

         default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

[  OK  ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.

[  N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager

         must state this fact in the request for review, along with the 

         rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without

         this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.

[  OK  ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does 

         not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package 

         which does create that directory.

[  OK  ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the

         spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in 

         specific situations)

[  OK  ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should

         be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section 

         must include a %defattr(...) line.

[  OK  ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.

[  OK  ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[  N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The 

         definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but 

         is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or 

         quantity).

[  OK  ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect

         the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the 

         program must run properly if it is not present.

[  N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

[  N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

[  N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. 

         libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) 

         must go in a -devel package.

[  N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the 

         base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}

         %{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}

[  N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must 

         be removed in the spec if they are built.[20]

[  N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a 

         %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with 

         desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your 

         packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put

         a comment in the spec file with your explanation.

[  OK  ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by 

         other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to

         be installed should own the files or directories that other packages 

         may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora 

         should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories

         owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a 

         good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,

         then please present that at package review time.

[  OK  ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 

[FAILED] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a 

         separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to 

         include it.

[  N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file 

         should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if 

         available.

[  OK  ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

[  OK  ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all 

         supported architectures.

[ SKIP ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as 

         described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for 

         example.

[  N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This

         is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. 

[  N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base 

         package using a fully versioned dependency.

[  N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their 

         usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be 

         placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg 

         itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or 

         gdb.

[  N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,

         /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which 

         provides the file instead of the file itself.

[  N/A ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.

         If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.





- Please correct the wrong license tag in the *.spec file (that's a must)

- Please consider replacing "cp -p" by "install -p -m 644" (keeping/setting 

  attributes).

- Please advise upstream to ship a separate file containing the license

  additionally (that's not a must for this review)

-- 
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]