[Bug 656483] Review Request: mod_remoteip - Apache Module mod_remoteip

[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=656483

Robert Scheck <redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed:

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

--- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck <redhat@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-05 13:17:56 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/*.rpm
mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) remoteip -> remoteness,
remote, remonetize
mod_remoteip.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C mod_remoteip
mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httpd -> HTTP
mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostname -> host
name, host-name, hostage
mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US authz -> auth, auth
z, autarch
mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ip -> pi, up, op
mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig,
con-fig, configure
mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inetd -> tined,
inept, inert
mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ident -> dent,
indent, rident
mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) remoteip -> remoteness,
remote, remonetize
mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C mod_remoteip
mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostname -> host
name, host-name, hostage
mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US authz -> auth,
auth z, autarch
mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ip -> pi, up, op
mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig,
con-fig, configure
mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inetd -> tined,
inept, inert
mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ident -> dent,
indent, rident
mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/httpd/modules/mod_remoteip.so
mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings.
$
[  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.
[  OK  ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and 
         meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[  OK  ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual 
         license.
[  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.
         -> e5266d44cf6ffc84bd4c855f71b2f4fb  mod_remoteip.c
         -> e5266d44cf6ffc84bd4c855f71b2f4fb  mod_remoteip.c.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.
         -> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} is used
[  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).
[  N/A ] 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.
[  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. 


[  N/A ] 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.
[  OK  ] 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.


Further things (mixed, must and should):
- "unstripped-binary-or-object" can (and must) be solved by putting the 
  forgotten/missing line "%setup -q -T -c" after line "%prep".
- Summary "Apache Module mod_remoteip" doesn't say anything. Example for a
  proper summary is "Apache module to replace client IP/hostname with that 
  given by a proxy", however something better than now is a must.
- May you explain where you get the version number from? I was not able to
  find a version number anywhere. If unsure use "Version: 0" rather current
  "Version: 0.1.20100929". A correct version/release tag is a must.
- If you want to mention a date from a checkout or similar, please note that
  it needs to be specified in release tag and by mentioning the type of SCM.
- Recommented to replace "%defattr (-,root,root)" by "%defattr(-,root,root,-)"
- Are you sure that /etc/httpd/conf.d/mod_remoteip.conf is really correct
  and not /etc/httpd/conf.d/remoteip.conf, like most other Apache modules are
  using? IMHO there is no need for mod_* in the configuration file name.
- Why is the configuration file mentioned previously inline? If somebody is
  configuring that module using your default configuration file and if you
  are performing a rebuild of the package or a dist-upgrade takes place, rpm
  will generate a .rpm(new|old|save) file - even if your default file did not
  change but the timestamp of your packaged file is newer, because it is
  created during build. I highly recommend here to put the configuration file
  default into a separate source file, e.g. "Source1: remoteip.conf".
- Replace "install %{SOURCE0} ." by "install -m 644 %{SOURCE0} ." or even by
  a "cp -pf %{SOURCE0} ." to avoid unnecessary "spurious-executable-perm" 
  warning in -debuginfo subpackage that will show up once first issue in this
  list is solved.
- Is "Requires: httpd >= 2.2, httpd < 2.3" really needed? If yes, I would
  like to get explained why. From my point of view, the ABI compatibility
  is guaranteed via httpd-mmn requirement and 2.3 should have another value
  for that field, shouldn't it? Keeping the restriction for buildrequires is
  nevertheless okay from my point of view.

Okay...that's it for now.

-- 
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]