Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: httpd-itk - MPM Itk for Apache HTTP Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598860
Summary: Review Request: httpd-itk - MPM Itk for Apache HTTP Server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: pahan@hubbitus.info QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/httpd-itk/httpd-itk.spec SRPM URL: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.15-1.fc13.src.rp... Description: This package contain mpm-itk which is an MPM (Multi-Processing Module) for the Apache web server. Mpm-itk allows you to run each of your vhost under a separate uid and gid — in short, the scripts and configuration files for one vhost no longer have to be readable for all the other vhosts.
In summary it is Apache module (opposite CGI solutions like suexec), fast and allow safely use non-thread-aware code software (like many PHP extensions f.e.)
Except spelling warnings about uid/gid words and similar there only two warning: httpd-itk.src:41: W: unversioned-explicit-provides webserver I think it is not problem, it is meta provide because it act as webserver. httpd-itk.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary httpd.itk There really no man page.
Koji builds: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224333 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224360 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2224345
P.S. Spec file formatted by tabs with 5 space width ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PavelAlexeev/tabsize ). Please, do not start review if it is a problem for you.
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=598860
--- Comment #1 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2010-07-28 10:06:33 EDT --- New apache version: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.16-2.fc13.src.rp...
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=598860
--- Comment #2 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2010-09-22 09:41:20 EDT --- New update follow to httpd: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.16-4.fc13.src.rp... http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/httpd-itk/httpd-itk.spec
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=598860
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2010-10-30 07:19:27 EDT --- Update follow to upstream: http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora13/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.17-3.fc13.src.rp...
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=598860
--- Comment #4 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2011-03-23 16:11:30 EDT --- Update follow to Fedora upstream httpd: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora13/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.17-4.fc13.src.rpm
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=598860
--- Comment #5 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2011-08-21 07:21:33 EDT --- New version 2.2.19 http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora15/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.19-1.fc15.src.rpm
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=598860
--- Comment #6 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2011-09-10 11:17:34 EDT --- http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora15/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.20-1.fc15.src.rpm
%changelog * Sat Sep 10 2011 Pavel Alexeev Pahan@Hubbitus.info - 2.2.20-1 - Security upstream update
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=598860
--- Comment #7 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2011-09-13 10:51:46 EDT --- Next update http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora15/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.21-1.fc15.src.rpm
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=598860
Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) me@ryanlewis.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |me@ryanlewis.net
--- Comment #8 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) me@ryanlewis.net 2011-12-23 21:15:40 EST --- Hi, links to working spec files + rpmlint -v on the .rpms please.
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=598860
--- Comment #9 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) me@ryanlewis.net 2011-12-23 21:19:59 EST --- ... and if you fix your crazy file spacing to that of a normal fedora system. I'll undertake your review.
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=598860
--- Comment #10 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2012-01-01 15:57:14 EST --- I believe what provided below links are works, at least for src.rpm: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora15/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.21-1.fc15.src.rpm http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora15/httpd-itk/httpd-itk.spec
I'll be glad if you take it, but what you are mean under "a normal fedora system"?? Could you please provide link to guideline or policy?
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=598860
--- Comment #11 from Ryan H. Lewis (rhl) me@ryanlewis.net 2012-01-02 15:16:32 EST --- "P.S. Spec file formatted by tabs with 5 space width ( http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PavelAlexeev/tabsize ). Please, do not start review if it is a problem for you."
Make it so that I don't need to do this.
I should be able to view the spec file so that it is legible: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Spec_Legibility
I'm not modifying my tabsize to deal with your spec.
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=598860
--- Comment #12 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2012-01-02 15:26:11 EST --- How I can known what tab size you are using? Now, today, tomorrow??
May be we start real work? Or do not start it. I'm ready continue this discussion if you want, but I think mail list or private conversation, forum or jabber will be much more appropriate place for that.
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=598860
Nikos Roussos nikos@autoverse.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |nikos@autoverse.net AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |nikos@autoverse.net Flag| |fedora-review?
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=598860
--- Comment #13 from Nikos Roussos nikos@autoverse.net 2012-02-14 16:32:22 EST --- Actually you're using tabs instead of spaces :) And in some cases you're mixing them. Use either spaces or tabs (spaces preferable). It's not against the policy, but it would make the spec far more readable.
Add some descriptive comments or/and upstream links on patches https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_...
You could add build requires dependencies one per line. It's more readable.
Use the full length of a line for description, up to 80 characters.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to add an echo command on %install section. If you want to give some information to the user, better add a README.Fedora or add some info on description.
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=598860
--- Comment #14 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2012-02-18 10:19:30 EST --- Firstly thank you for the review, Nikos.
(In reply to comment #13)
Actually you're using tabs instead of spaces :) And in some cases you're mixing them.
I believe it is not. Please say on what line and I'll fix it. Rpmlint silent about that.
Add some descriptive comments or/and upstream links on patches https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_...
It there. I have slightly fix it and add URL on comment.
You could add build requires dependencies one per line. It's more readable.
It then increase size of file which already not so small. I think it is not block.
Use the full length of a line for description, up to 80 characters.
There no lines longer already.
I'm not sure it's a good idea to add an echo command on %install section. If you want to give some information to the user, better add a README.Fedora or add some info on description.
I have no any serious advantages of it, but it moved.
Also update to new version: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora16/httpd-itk/httpd-itk.spec http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora16/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.22-1.fc16.src.rpm
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=598860
--- Comment #15 from Nikos Roussos nikos@autoverse.net 2012-02-21 04:09:30 EST --- (In reply to comment #13)
Actually you're using tabs instead of spaces :) And in some cases you're mixing them.
I believe it is not. Please say on what line and I'll fix it. Rpmlint silent about that.
For instance you use tabs on BuildRequires lines but spaces on "if" block at line 79.
You could add build requires dependencies one per line. It's more readable.
It then increase size of file which already not so small. I think it is not block.
Both this and the above are definitely not blockers. It's just friendly suggestions to make the spec more readable.
Use the full length of a line for description, up to 80 characters.
There no lines longer already.
I meant the opposite :) Some lines should be longer. For instance the first one on the description block.
Add some descriptive comments or/and upstream links on patches
It there. I have slightly fix it and add URL on comment.
Nice. Please keep track of this in order to update your spec in a future release.
I'll do a format review asap.
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=598860
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #16 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2012-02-23 12:45:12 EST --- (In reply to comment #15)
(In reply to comment #13)
Actually you're using tabs instead of spaces :) And in some cases you're mixing them.
I believe it is not. Please say on what line and I'll fix it. Rpmlint silent about that.
For instance you use tabs on BuildRequires lines but spaces on "if" block at line 79.
Yes, you are right there. Thank you. Fixed.
I meant the opposite :) Some lines should be longer. For instance the first one on the description block.
Fixed.
http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora16/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.22-2.fc16.src.rpm http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora16/httpd-itk/httpd-itk.spec
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=598860
--- Comment #17 from Nikos Roussos nikos@autoverse.net 2012-02-28 11:25:16 EST --- cp: cannot stat `README.Fedora': No such file or directory
You have to include README.Fedora on src.rpm and add it on SOURCES on spec. See a spec example on how to do it: http://comzeradd.fedorapeople.org/specs/idjc.spec
Fix this and I think the package is ready for review and approval
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=598860
--- Comment #18 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2012-03-01 14:54:43 EST --- Good catch. Thank you. Fixed: http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora16/httpd-itk/httpd-itk.spec http://hubbitus.info/rpm/Fedora16/httpd-itk/httpd-itk-2.2.22-3.fc16.src.rpm
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=598860
--- Comment #19 from Nikos Roussos nikos@autoverse.net 2012-03-06 07:50:54 EST --- It seems ok. Here is the review
+: OK -: must be fixed =: should be fixed (at your discretion) ?: Question or clarification needed N: not applicable
MUST: [+] rpmlint output: shown in comment: none [+] follows package naming guidelines [+] spec file base name matches package name [+] package meets the packaging guidelines [+] package uses a Fedora approved license: ASL 2.0 [+] license field matches the actual license. [-] license file is included in %doc
Please include LICENSE on %doc (also README)
[+] spec file is in American English [+] spec file is legible [+] sources match upstream: md5sum matches [+] package builds on at least one primary arch: Tested F16 x86_64 [N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch [+] all build requirements in BuildRequires [N] spec file handles locales properly [N] ldconfig in %post and %postun [+] no bundled copies of system libraries [+] no relocatable packages [+] package owns all directories that it creates [+] no files listed twice in %files [+] proper permissions on files [+] consistent use of macros [+] code or permissible content [N] large documentation in -doc [+] no runtime dependencies in %doc [N] header files in -devel [N] static libraries in -static [N] .so in -devel [N] -devel requires main package [+] package contains no libtool archives [N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install/validate [+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages [+] all filenames in UTF-8
SHOULD: [N] query upstream for license text [=] description and summary contains available translations [+] package builds in mock [=] package builds on all supported arches: Tested x86_64 [+] package functions as described: [N] sane scriptlets [N] subpackages require the main package [N] placement of pkgconfig files [+] file dependencies versus package dependencies [=] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts
Have you considered adding man pages or are the same as httpd package?
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=598860
--- Comment #20 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2012-03-06 14:03:17 EST --- There nothing place in separate man. It's just apache MPM providing another inner security model. Installation note placed in rpm description. Each other help and utilities come from main httpd package which in dependencies.
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=598860
--- Comment #21 from Nikos Roussos nikos@autoverse.net 2012-03-06 14:41:03 EST --- See also the comment about license. You should include the LICENSE on %doc (and README)
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=598860
--- Comment #22 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2012-03-06 14:47:34 EST --- LICENSE and README from apache? For what? It will be just duplication of that files in main required package.
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=598860
--- Comment #23 from Nikos Roussos nikos@autoverse.net 2012-03-06 15:01:56 EST --- Now I see what you mean :) You're right. My bad.
Package is *approved*. You may proceed with the SCM request.
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=598860
Nikos Roussos nikos@autoverse.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
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=598860
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #24 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info 2012-03-06 15:24:42 EST --- Nikos, thank you very much for the review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: httpd-itk Short Description: MPM Itk for Apache HTTP Server Owners: hubbitus Branches: F16 F17 EL-5 EL-6 InitialCC:
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=598860
--- Comment #25 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-03-06 16:18:44 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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=598860
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=598860
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-08 07:41:24 EST --- httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.el6
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=598860
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-08 08:14:40 EST --- httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc16
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=598860
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-08 08:20:59 EST --- httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc17
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=598860
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-08 11:15:38 EST --- Package httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc17: * should fix your issue, * was pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository, * should be available at your local mirror within two days. Update it with: # su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc17' as soon as you are able to. Please go to the following url: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-3388/httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.... then log in and leave karma (feedback).
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=598860
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc17 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-03-16 17:22:38
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-16 17:22:38 EDT --- httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=598860
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc17 |httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc16
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-17 19:34:01 EDT --- httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=598860
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.fc16 |httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.el6
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-24 15:04:14 EDT --- httpd-itk-2.2.22-5.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla