https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235305 --- Comment #2 from Ingvar Hagelund <ingvar@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Sören Möller from comment #1) > I have tried to review your package. Note that this is only a comment, as I > havn't the permissions to do a formal review yet, but I hope this will be > helpfull for the real reviewer and you. Be aware that there are a few points > on lie list below, which I was not able to check. Thanks for the effort, Sören. I will try to fix the issues mentioned, and wait for an "official" review. Updated src.rpm at http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/hitch/hitch-1.0.0-0.3.1.beta3.fc22.src.rpm Updated specfile at http://users.linpro.no/ingvar/varnish/hitch/hitch.spec > ==Issues== > -tests/certs contains the symlink cc2a776f, which points to a file > sites.example.com, which does not exist That is an upstream problem. The symlink is not used in the build process. > -the tests could maybe be added to a %check section Added, thanks. > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > The package includes a 2 clause BSD license as stated in the spec-file, but > it is unclear if this holds for all source. > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", > "*No copyright* Public domain". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in /home/scren/1235305-hitch/licensecheck.txt > The package includes a 2 clause BSD license as stated in the spec-file, but > it is unclear if this holds for all source. Some source files state other > licenses or no license at all. Most files are 2 clause BSD. 1 header file is 3 clause BSD. 1 header file is "public domain". These should all be compatible with 2 clause BSD. configuration.c and configuration.h were written by Brane F. Gracnar for the stud project so it should be covered by the general LICENSE file in the original stud distribution, https://github.com/bumptech/stud/blob/master/LICENSE, (2 clause BSD). shctx.c and shctx.h were written by Emeric Brun, and also added to the stud project by him, so the same goes for those. version.h is just a one-line simple define of the the release version. It should not need any license. tests/common.sh is a just a few lines of bash code that is part of the test suite, written by Dag Haavi Finstad of the Varnish project for this release of hitch. It is covered by the general top level LICENSE file. > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /etc/hitch > The package presumably should create and own this directory > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/hitch > The package presumably should create and own this directory Fixed > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > For RHEL6 it uses > export CFLAGS="-I/usr/include/libev" > directly, but this might be necessary. No hard-coded paths for fedora. Fixed > [?]: Buildroot is not preset > Note: Buildroot: present but not needed > [!]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) > Note: %clean present but not required > Might want to remove %clean I think it is a good thing to clean the buildroot explicitly when building for epel6, and it doesn't hurt to keep it for all builds. > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > No justification for the patches, apart from what can be guessed from the > patch files' name Fixed, except for the obvious systemd.service.patch and initrc.redhat.patch > [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > Only tested x86_64 The scratch builds were done on all supported archs > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > No %check Fixed > hitch.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hitch-openssl > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. The manpage is named "hitch", which matches the systemd/sysvinit service name and the configuration directory name. The generated binary is actually called "hitch-openssl". I'm not sure what is the best way to fix this, or if it's even necessary to do anything about it. br, Ingvar -- 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review