Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: ipset - Manage Linux IP sets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=738153
Summary: Review Request: ipset - Manage Linux IP sets Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bochecha@fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/ipset.spec SRPM URL: http://bochecha.fedorapeople.org/packages/ipset-6.9.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: IP sets are a framework inside the Linux 2.4.x and 2.6.x kernel, which can be administered by the ipset utility. Depending on the type, currently an IP set may store IP addresses, (TCP/UDP) port numbers or IP addresses with MAC addresses in a way, which ensures lightning speed when matching an entry against a set.
If you want to: - store multiple IP addresses or port numbers and match against the collection by iptables at one swoop; - dynamically update iptables rules against IP addresses or ports without performance penalty; - express complex IP address and ports based rulesets with one single iptables rule and benefit from the speed of IP sets then ipset may be the proper tool for you.
$ rpmlint ipset* ipset.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iptables -> potables, portables, inflatables ipset.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rulesets -> rule sets, rule-sets, rules ipset.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iptables -> potables, portables, inflatables ipset.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rulesets -> rule sets, rule-sets, rules 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
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=738153
--- Comment #1 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-15 03:25:18 EDT --- Note that the patch I apply to this package has just been accepted upstream without modification, so it should be included in the next release (and thus dropped from the package).
http://git.netfilter.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=ipset.git;a=commitdiff;h=70fdf...
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=738153
Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pingou@pingoured.fr 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=738153
Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Pierre-YvesChibon pingou@pingoured.fr 2011-09-15 04:40:30 EDT --- [X] rpmlint must be run on every package. ipset.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iptables -> stables, tables ipset.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rulesets -> rule sets, rule-sets, runlets ipset.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iptables -> stables, tables ipset.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US rulesets -> rule sets, rule-sets, runlets 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. These can be safely ignored.
[X] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[X] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[X] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[X] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. License is GPLv2 for most files, except: - one file on the kernel folder which is under Public Domain - the file ax_cflags_gcc_option.m4 in the m4 folder which is under GPLv3+ - the file ipset.8 on the src folder which is GPLv2+ GPLv2 is thus the most restrictive license and the GPLv3+ from the m4 file can be ignored as explained in the said file.
[X] 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.
[X] The spec file must be written in American English.
[X] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[X] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. source from the src.rpm: 781d5ad6a9e4d5bf6f8ccad3dfee8a578ed06c2a ipset-6.9.1.tar.bz2 upstream source: 781d5ad6a9e4d5bf6f8ccad3dfee8a578ed06c2a ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/ipset-6.9.1.tar.bz2
[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Build properly under 2.6.40.3-0.fc15.x86_64 Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3352759
[NA] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch.
[X] 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.
[NA] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[X] 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.
[X] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[NA] 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.
[NA] 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.
[X] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
[X] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.
[!] Each package must consistently use macros. make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -exec rm -f '{}' ; One of the two has to be changed
[X] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[!] 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. I believe it could be interesting to include the ChangeLog file as %doc.
[X] Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[X] 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.
[X] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: non-noarch: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}. noarch: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
[X] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA] 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.
[X] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
I am confident you can fix the macro used and add the ChangeLog files to the %doc section before importing the package into Fedora.
This package is therefore APPROVED.
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=738153
Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-15 22:13:44 EDT --- Thanks PY!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ipset Short Description: Manage Linux IP sets Owners: bochecha Branches: f16 el6 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=738153
--- Comment #4 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-15 23:32:43 EDT --- Oops, this can't go in el6 as the kernel is way too old (I mistook this with my other review requests which all go in el6).
Doing it again...
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ipset Short Description: Manage Linux IP sets Owners: bochecha Branches: f16 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=738153
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-09-16 09:34:18 EDT --- 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=738153
Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-09-18 23:13:53
--- Comment #6 from Mathieu Bridon bochecha@fedoraproject.org 2011-09-18 23:13:53 EDT --- Pushed and built, thanks PY and Jon.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org