Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: mongoose - An easy-to-use self-sufficient web server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592670
Summary: Review Request: mongoose - An easy-to-use self-sufficient web server Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: aquini@linux.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose.spec SRPM URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose-2.8-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Mongoose web server executable is self-sufficient, it does not depend on anything to start serving requests. If it is copied to any directory and executed, it starts to serve that directory on port 8080 (so to access files, go to http://localhost:8080). If some additional configuration is required - for example, different listening port or IP-based access control, then a 'mongoose.conf' file with respective options can be created in the same directory where executable lives. This makes Mongoose perfect for all sorts of demos, quick tests, file sharing, and Web programming.
This is my first package submission, and I would really like to hear feedback from you!
Thanks in advance for the reviewers attention on this matter.
MD5 sum for files: bd16ad5d19382607fe5cab8c32f0ce51 mongoose-2.8-1.fc12.src.rpm b3f5412d710ab35a617e19fe3a9743c0 mongoose.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=592670
Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
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=592670
Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |supercyper1@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-05-16 23:32:11 EDT --- Several problems:
1. missing a initscript http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SysVInitScript
2.-devel subpackage is not needed in this package
3. %doc %{_defaultdocdir}/%{name}-%{version}/%{name}.conf
%doc is not needed in %{_defaultdocdir}
4.
Group: Development/Tools is not appropriate
5.Please do not gzip man page by yourself, rpmbuild will do it automatically.
6. most packagers/reviewers don't like use unnecessary macros, e.g. %{__install} %{__gzip}
Some reference for you: 1.http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package 2.http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines
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=592670
--- Comment #2 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-05-17 10:15:32 EDT --- Spec URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose.spec SRPM URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose-2.8-2.fc12.src.rpm
MD5: fa58e9038709d389b2fc7c6cffc9c068 mongoose-2.8-2.fc12.src.rpm 3ffb7344a8f8cb8056cfa2c8e220649c mongoose.spec
Chen, Thanks for reviewing the spec.
I did make some of the modifications you suggested, as follows: [2] -devel package was stripped off the spec file; [3] The misusing of %doc was fixed; [4] Group changed to Applications/System -- IMHO, I do not think it could fit in anyone else in System Environment class; [5] Now the man page compression is done by rpmbuild itself.
Unfortunately, there was some suggestions of yours I could not deliver as promptly as you wish: [1] I do not see a real necessity to ship a SysV initscrip, since mongoose is a regular user tool not intended to work as a daemon. The purpose of mongoose is to give flexibility to an ordinary user (not administrator) when he/she needs to set up quickly an web server to share files in a specific directory, or just do some tests. Please, let me know if you observation [1] is a real blocker to this package.
[6] As you may notice, there is no install section on Makefile delivered by upstream, so I have the real need of being using %{__install} macros. IMHO, it would be preferable using this macros than the commands itself, wouldn' be? Please, let me know if you observation [6] is also a real blocker to this package.
Once again, thanks a lot for your attention on this matter.
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=592670
Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |terjeros@phys.ntnu.no
--- Comment #3 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2010-05-18 02:46:26 EDT --- The %setup macro takes arguments you can use to write simpler spec files. Full documentation: http://www.rpm.org/max-rpm/s1-rpm-inside-macros.html
The %doc macro takes files in the build dir (inside the unpacked tarball) and puts files in %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}.
install has a -D option you can use.
It's normal to list man pages this way: %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*
spec file where these tips are implemented:
spec: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/mongoose/mongoose.spec srpm: http://terjeros.fedorapeople.org/mongoose/mongoose-2.8-3.fc12.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=592670
--- Comment #4 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-05-18 04:35:30 EDT ---
do some tests. Please, let me know if you observation [1] is a real blocker to this package. [6] As you may notice, there is no install section on Makefile delivered by upstream, so I have the real need of being using %{__install} macros. IMHO, it would be preferable using this macros than the commands itself, wouldn' be?
1.New packagers should avoid of using unnecessarily macros, e.g. %{__rm} %{__install} %{__ln_s} etc, those macros are useless for fedora.
2. You can include examples in %doc
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_tricks
3. As Terje RÃ said, you should list man pages in this way: %{_mandir}/man1/%{name}.1*, because fedora may switch manpages from gz to other compression format in some time.
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=592670
--- Comment #5 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-05-18 09:25:42 EDT --- Terje and Chen, Thanks a lot for your attention, and for the valuable guidance and review.
Here are the new Spec and SRPM based on several suggestions of yours: Spec URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose.spec SRPM URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose-2.8-3.fc12.src.rpm
MD5 sum: 099c517688eed8f2505856b90b4c334f mongoose.spec 89d928ea31bf80677157ea0c7fe30a85 mongoose-2.8-3.fc12.src.rpm
Best regards.
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=592670
--- Comment #6 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-05-18 10:01:09 EDT --- 1.Patch1 is not enough, you should also remove some gcc switches in CFLAGS: -W -Wall -std=c99 -pedantic -Os 2. Don't add source to %doc( %{name}.c %{name}.h Makefile main.c) 3. use install instead of %{__install}
rpm --eval %__install /usr/bin/install
rpm --eval %__make /usr/bin/make
rpm --eval %__rm /usr/bin/rm
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=592670
Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rc040203@freenet.de
--- Comment #7 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2010-05-18 10:14:53 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6)
1.Patch1 is not enough, you should also remove some gcc switches in CFLAGS: -W -Wall -std=c99 -pedantic -Os
make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" linux
use install instead of %{__install}
rpm --eval %__install /usr/bin/install
rpm --eval %__make /usr/bin/make
rpm --eval %__rm /usr/bin/rm
No idea why you are fighting these macros. These macros are correct, there is nothing wrong in using them.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592670
--- Comment #8 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-05-18 10:40:00 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
1.Patch1 is not enough, you should also remove some gcc switches in CFLAGS: -W -Wall -std=c99 -pedantic -Os
make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" linux
use install instead of %{__install}
rpm --eval %__install /usr/bin/install
rpm --eval %__make /usr/bin/make
rpm --eval %__rm /usr/bin/rm
No idea why you are fighting these macros. These macros are correct, there is nothing wrong in using them.
Several months, there's a disscussion in fedora-packaging maillist most packagers object using those unesscessary macros.
Actually for seasoned packagers, I think use those macros are acceptable if they can use them consistently throughout the spec.
But, for new packagers, they can hardly use those macros consistently, taken this spec for a example: The packager choose %{__install}, but still use rm, make, mkdir. This breaks the principle of pick one packaging style and use it consistently.
For me, I always suggest new packagers not to use those macros, few new packagers can remember those rpm macros which have shorten alternative commands.
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=592670
--- Comment #9 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2010-05-18 10:56:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
(In reply to comment #6)
1.Patch1 is not enough, you should also remove some gcc switches in CFLAGS: -W -Wall -std=c99 -pedantic -Os
make CFLAGS="$RPM_OPT_FLAGS" linux
use install instead of %{__install}
rpm --eval %__install /usr/bin/install
rpm --eval %__make /usr/bin/make
rpm --eval %__rm /usr/bin/rm
No idea why you are fighting these macros. These macros are correct, there is nothing wrong in using them.
Several months, there's a disscussion in fedora-packaging maillist most packagers object using those unesscessary macros.
Still, there is nothing wrong in using them nor did we ban them.
Actually for seasoned packagers, I think use those macros are acceptable if they can use them consistently throughout the spec.
Actually, technically these macros are superior and cleaner than not using them.
The problems with these macros are elsewhere: Once they are being used, rpm can't easily get rid of them.
But, for new packagers, they can hardly use those macros consistently, taken this spec for a example: The packager choose %{__install}, but still use rm, make, mkdir. This breaks the principle of pick one packaging style and use it consistently.
For me, I always suggest new packagers not to use those macros, few new packagers can remember those rpm macros which have shorten alternative commands.
Well, for the moment, I abstain to furtherly comment on this. Only so far, you are enforcing a non existing rule.
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=592670
--- Comment #10 from Terje Røsten terjeros@phys.ntnu.no 2010-05-18 11:06:49 EDT --- If there are no policy against macros let the packager decide?
Some more, more important comments:
o should the python bindings be shipped? o does it make sense to ship and enable a default mongonse.conf in /etc/mongoose.conf by adding -DCONFIG_FILE="%{_sysconfdir}/mongoose.conf" to make and install mongoose.conf in correct location? o ship .c and .h file in devel package for use in embedded mode? o mongoose seems to do some funky things with SSL. There are no req. on ssl libs, but package seems to have SSL support.
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=592670
--- Comment #11 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2010-05-18 11:38:22 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)
If there are no policy against macros let the packager decide?
Exactly.
o does it make sense to ship and enable a default mongonse.conf in /etc/mongoose.conf by adding -DCONFIG_FILE="%{_sysconfdir}/mongoose.conf" to make and install mongoose.conf in correct location?
IMO, yes. I was about to propose the same, but you were faster ;)
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=592670
--- Comment #12 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-05-18 11:48:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #11)
(In reply to comment #10)
If there are no policy against macros let the packager decide?
Exactly.
I agree with this, but one packager should choose one packaging style. If he like using macros, then he'd better to also use %{__rm} %{__make} instead of rm or make.
There's also a disscussion on devel list. http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-March/133466.html
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=592670
--- Comment #13 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-05-18 14:35:41 EDT --- Hello Terje, Ralf and Chen.
Firstly, thank you guys a lot for giving me such attention!
(In reply to comment #10)
Some more, more important comments:
o should the python bindings be shipped?
Could you point me some doc on that, please? I'm kind of python 'unaware' :(
o does it make sense to ship and enable a default mongonse.conf in /etc/mongoose.conf by adding -DCONFIG_FILE="%{_sysconfdir}/mongoose.conf" to make and install mongoose.conf in correct location?
OK, that will be done in the next Spec.
o ship .c and .h file in devel package for use in embedded mode?
Those were shipped in the first version, in a -devel rpm. Chen has pointed it as unnecessary and I stripped it off from Spec. I can reinclude the %package section and ship those files again.
o mongoose seems to do some funky things with SSL. There are no req. on ssl libs, but package seems to have SSL support.
In SSL mode, mongoose tries to load libssl.so on demand -- pretty much like apache does with its modules. It was my fault not include the libssl-devel req. My question, now, is that: Should I include this -devel req in the ordinary rpm or should I ship it as another rpm (like -ssl), just to fulfill this req, that users must install if they want SSL support?
(In reply to comment #12) Chen, as it seems that you ended up agreeing with Terje and Ralf, I will adopt your last suggestion and just use macros from now on (until we haven't another guidance).Please do not take it as personal, I just really think that macros are useful and cleaner than simple cmds.
Guys, thanks again! In a couple days I will be posting these new improvements...
Please, let me aware of anything else meanwhile!
Best regards.
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=592670
--- Comment #14 from Chen Lei supercyper1@gmail.com 2010-05-18 15:08:45 EDT --- (In reply to comment #13)
o ship .c and .h file in devel package for use in embedded mode?
Those were shipped in the first version, in a -devel rpm. Chen has pointed it as unnecessary and I stripped it off from Spec. I can reinclude the %package section and ship those files again.
You can split out libmongoose and libmongoose-devel as subpackages or simply drop those files. Include source files in rpm is not a right way.
o mongoose seems to do some funky things with SSL. There are no req. on ssl libs, but package seems to have SSL support.
In SSL mode, mongoose tries to load libssl.so on demand -- pretty much like apache does with its modules. It was my fault not include the libssl-devel req. My question, now, is that: Should I include this -devel req in the ordinary rpm or should I ship it as another rpm (like -ssl), just to fulfill this req, that users must install if they want SSL support?
If the shlib is dlopened, you should not add it as a dependency.
(In reply to comment #12) Chen, as it seems that you ended up agreeing with Terje and Ralf, I will adopt your last suggestion and just use macros from now on (until we haven't another guidance).Please do not take it as personal, I just really think that macros are useful and cleaner than simple cmds.
Few sponsors like this style. See http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2010-March/133466.html
Also few crital packages in fedora use those macros.
http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/kernel/devel/kernel.spec?view=marku... http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/glibc/devel/glibc.spec?view=markup http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/gtk2/devel/gtk2.spec?revision=1.430...
I agree with Ralf that no guideline against using of those macros, but I still suggest you not to use them. Actually, those macros are not documented in fedora guideline.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/RPMMacros
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=592670
--- Comment #15 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-05-19 09:00:00 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=415100) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=415100) Email - upstream reply
Sergey Lyubka replies some questions raised over the mongoose.spec 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=592670
--- Comment #16 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-05-19 09:00:24 EDT --- Hello all,
Yesterday I talked to Sergey Lyubka, upstream mongoose developer, and for the sake of brevity I will quote his major thoughts bellow. The entire email is attached to this ticket also.
" Mongoose supports SSL but does not depend on the SSL library. This is because SSL support is best-effort: Mongoose tries to load libssl.so dynamically. If it is present on the system, Mongoose will support SSL, otherwise not.
Regarding devel package, honestly I would not create it at all. "
Facing that, should I really ship the -devel package? Are the questions concerning SSL dependency clarified?
Please, give me some thoughts about it, people.
Thanks in advance for your attention on this matter.
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=592670
--- Comment #17 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2010-05-19 09:31:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #16)
" Mongoose supports SSL but does not depend on the SSL library. This is because SSL support is best-effort: Mongoose tries to load libssl.so dynamically. If it is present on the system, Mongoose will support SSL, otherwise not.
That's not the way to do it under Linux. The normal way to use shared libs is to directly link them in.
If, for some reasons, they need to be dlopen'ed, then the "versioned libraries" libraries need to be dlopen'ed, not the unversioned libraries.
I.e. dlopening libopenssl.so is wrong. It should be libopenssl.so.<something> => This package needs to be patched.
BTW: I just noticed, in mongoose, the same consideration applies to libcrypto.so.*.
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=592670
--- Comment #18 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-05-19 10:13:20 EDT --- Ralf,
(In reply to comment #17)
If, for some reasons, they need to be dlopen'ed, then the "versioned libraries" libraries need to be dlopen'ed, not the unversioned libraries.
I.e. dlopening libopenssl.so is wrong. It should be libopenssl.so.<something> => This package needs to be patched.
BTW: I just noticed, in mongoose, the same consideration applies to libcrypto.so.*.
I think it would be a good approach apply a patch to fix that two #defines SSL_LIB and CRYPTO_LIB in mongoose.c, wouldn't it? That way we fix this issue with dlopen'ed non-versioned libraries without asking for great modifications on the whole project. I can ask upstream for a patch, or I can provide that patch from myself.
If so, it will remain me one more question: Just after patching mongoose.c to fix the SSL requisites it would be advisable to include openssl as a req to mongoose rpm installation, wouldn't be?
Once again, thanks for your attention
Regards.
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=592670
--- Comment #19 from Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de 2010-05-19 11:06:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #18)
I think it would be a good approach apply a patch to fix that two #defines SSL_LIB and CRYPTO_LIB in mongoose.c, wouldn't it?
This is what I would do.
I'd add something similar to this to mongoose.c #ifndef SSL_LIB #define SSL_LIB "libssl.so" #endif and use something similar to this make CFLAGS="${RPM_OPT_FLAGS} -DSSL_LIB="libssl.so.<version>""
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=592670
--- Comment #20 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-05-19 23:58:11 EDT --- Spec URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose.spec SRPM URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose-2.8-4.fc12.src.rpm
MD5: 82d77f3cac55d6bcf706f50ab49c79a6 mongoose.spec 8f2ac61063f9cf9e3c24e7b9f531acf2 mongoose-2.8-4.fc12.src.rpm
Ok, here we go for another review round. ;)
Ralf: The issue of dlopen'ed non-versioned openssl shared libs was addressed exactly as you have suggested. Now SSL_LIB and CRYPTO_LIB can be defined to override mongoose's default values in build time.
Terje: I do not include an openssl req in the package, hence mongoose does a very neat job when it calls dlopen() to the SSL_LIB and CRYPTO_LIB. So, if mongoose runs into a situation in it can't find those libs in the system, all of its SSL support will be disabled without breaking any other part of the software. (Please, let me know if that is OK) I also do not ship mongoose.conf as you suggested, because I realized if I done that mongoose wouldn't be self-sufficient (as is stated in its description) and it wouldn't fit its major goal of being perfect for all sorts of demos, quick tests, file sharing, and Web programming. In other words, any attempt of an ordinary user to start mongoose without pointing another conf file would crash due to insufficient permissions to bind privileged ports. Firstly I thought it would be better having the conf file in /etc instead of pwd(). However, it has just caused more annoyances than pleasure when using mongoose.
Chen: Now, there is no trace of any source file shipped at all.
Guys, I really look forward your feedback. Please, do no hesitate in review this package and send me any suggestion or improvements.
Thank you very much for your attention!
Best regards.
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=592670
Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dougsland@redhat.com
--- Comment #21 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com 2010-07-13 17:53:44 EDT --- Hello Rafael,
Comments, inline.
Ralf Corsepius 2010-05-19 09:31:16 EDT
" Mongoose supports SSL but does not depend on the SSL library. This is because SSL support is best-effort: Mongoose tries to load libssl.so dynamically. If it is present on the system, Mongoose will support SSL, otherwise not.
That's not the way to do it under Linux. The normal way to use shared libs is to directly link them in.
If, for some reasons, they need to be dlopen'ed, then the "versioned libraries" libraries need to be dlopen'ed, not the unversioned libraries.
I.e. dlopening libopenssl.so is wrong. It should be libopenssl.so.<something> => This package needs to be patched.
BTW: I just noticed, in mongoose, the same consideration applies to libcrypto.so.*.
IMO, your spec looks good, also followed all requests above. However, since using the approach for versioning the libssl as described early, please also add RequireBuild field for openssl package, and make a script in order to check dynamically the correct version of ssl library. Using this can avoid break the package (since currently is static - 1.0.0) for future release on Fedora.
Thanks!
Cheers Douglas
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=592670
--- Comment #22 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-07-13 23:49:50 EDT --- Hello Douglas,
Thanks a lot for taking time and providing me such valuable suggestion.
I did all modifications you have suggested as inserting "BuildRequires: openssl-devel", and also as inserting a small script before calling "make" at %build section. Please, let me know if that approach is clean and neat enough in its trying to address the fix suggested.
I look forward your comments!
Cheers.
-- Spec URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose.spec SRPM URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose-2.8-5.fc12.src.rpm
MD5: 01c8e71bb28beccfc200104db176019c mongoose.spec 9ff618fdbb61ecbaf65c9831a41b9564 mongoose-2.8-5.fc12.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=592670
--- Comment #23 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf dougsland@redhat.com 2010-07-14 10:52:48 EDT --- Hello Rafael,
I did all modifications you have suggested as inserting "BuildRequires: openssl-devel", and also as inserting a small script before calling "make" at %build section. Please, let me know if that approach is clean and neat enough in its trying to address the fix suggested.
I look forward your comments!
According with the last spec/src.rpm ACK from my side. To my eyes your package looks good.
Hopefully, soon someone with the right permissions will post the final review/approval to your package.
Cheers Douglas
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=592670
--- Comment #24 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-07-18 11:13:56 EDT --- PING...
I'm still looking forward sponsorship. Besides this submission, in order to show my understanding of Package Review Guidelines, I've also done some informal reviews as follows: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=592770 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=595011
Thanks in advance for your attention!
Best regards.
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=592670
Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |a.badger@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |a.badger@gmail.com
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=592670
Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #25 from Toshio Ernie Kuratomi a.badger@gmail.com 2010-07-21 15:28:47 EDT --- Good: * Package is named mongoose which follows the upstream project name * spec file naming follows package naming * License in spec and sources is MIT which is open source * No license text included in the tarball so no need to include one. * Spec is legible and American English * http://mongoose.googlecode.com/files/mongoose-2.8.tgz * Source matches upstream * No locale files * No shared libraries * No bundled libraries * Not relocatable * No directories created unowned * No duplicate files * Default permissions are set * Package is code * No large documentation * No %doc files are used at runtime * No header files * Not a GUI application * Does not own files or directories from other packages * All filenames are utf8 * Patch files both have upstream issues opened and look good for our purposes * Builds in koji (See Needswork below for one change that I implemented when building in koji) * rpmlint is clean: 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. * Ran mongoose on a directory of html files nad it served them up on port 8080
Needswork: * We can't call rpm from within an rpm spec file since we aren't assured that the rpm that created the build environment is compatible with the rpm that would be run within the environment. Here's a different command that would work: LIBV=$(find '%{_libdir}' | grep -E '/libssl.so.[0-9]?[0-9]?$' | sed -e 's!%{_libdir}/libssl.so.!!') * Ask upstream to include a license file.
APPROVED
Remember to fix the LIBV line in the spec file before you import and build.
I'm sponsoring you and approving the package. Feel free to ask me any questions you have. I'm abadger1999 on irc.freenode.net (almost always in #fedora-admin) and toshio [at] fedoraproject.org
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=592670
--- Comment #26 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-07-22 01:13:08 EDT --- Toshio,
I fixed that approach to grab the correct versioned shared libraries as you have suggested, and I also opened an issue asking upstream to ship a license text file within mongoose's .tar file (http://code.google.com/p/mongoose/issues/detail?id=159). I also did successfull mock & koji build tests for dist-f12 & dist-f13 branches.
Thanks for taking time to review this package and sponsor me as a Fedora packager.
Best regards
-- Spec URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose.spec SRPM URL: http://aquini.tchesoft.com/RPMS/mongoose/mongoose-2.8-6.fc12.src.rpm
MD5: 979fc85b1e6c5f812afca7a8441ef879 mongoose.spec e0a4b6be5e68c785cc5da0811dfe2ca7 mongoose-2.8-6.fc12.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=592670
Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #27 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-07-22 01:15:03 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mongoose Short Description: An easy-to-use self-sufficient web server Owners: aquini Branches: F-12 F-13 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=592670
--- Comment #28 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-07-23 17:32:57 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
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=592670
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-27 08:06:30 EDT --- mongoose-2.8-6.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mongoose-2.8-6.fc12
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=592670
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-27 08:06:35 EDT --- mongoose-2.8-6.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mongoose-2.8-6.fc13
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=592670
Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
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=592670
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-30 04:31:41 EDT --- mongoose-2.8-6.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 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=592670
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |mongoose-2.8-6.fc13 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA
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=592670
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-07-30 04:38:53 EDT --- mongoose-2.8-6.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 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=592670
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|mongoose-2.8-6.fc13 |mongoose-2.8-6.fc12
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=592670
Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #33 from Rafael Aquini aquini@linux.com 2010-08-04 23:45:17 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: mongoose New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: aquini
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=592670
--- Comment #34 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2010-08-05 13:00:13 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=592670
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-08-07 14:06:11 EDT --- mongoose-2.8-6.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mongoose-2.8-6.el5
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=592670
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2010-08-24 19:01:26 EDT --- mongoose-2.8-6.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 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=592670
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-25 17:36:02 EDT --- mongoose-3.0-1.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mongoose-3.0-1.fc14
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=592670
--- Comment #38 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-07-25 17:52:00 EDT --- mongoose-3.0-1.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mongoose-3.0-1.fc15
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=592670
--- Comment #39 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-02 22:35:04 EDT --- mongoose-3.0-1.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 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=592670
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|mongoose-2.8-6.fc12 |mongoose-3.0-1.fc15
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=592670
--- Comment #40 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-02 22:35:42 EDT --- mongoose-3.0-1.fc14 has been pushed to the Fedora 14 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=592670
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|mongoose-3.0-1.fc15 |mongoose-3.0-1.fc14
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla