https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
Bug ID: 1089561 Summary: Review Request: mod_ruid2 - A suexec module for Apache Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: athmanem@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/mod_ruid2.spec SRPM URL: http://athmane.fedorapeople.org/pkgs/mod_ruid2-0.9.8-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: mod_ruid2 is a suexec module for Apache which takes advantage of POSIX.1e capabilities to increase performance.
Fedora Account System Username: athmane
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
--- Comment #1 from Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com ---
Rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint RPMS/x86_64/mod_ruid2-0.9.8-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm SPECS/mod_ruid2.spec SRPMS/mod_ruid2-0.9.8-1.fc20.src.rpm
mod_ruid2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) suexec -> execute mod_ruid2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US suexec -> execute mod_ruid2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) suexec -> execute mod_ruid2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US suexec -> execute 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rawhide scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6759811
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
--- Comment #2 from Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com --- Please find bellow url to coprs repo for testing.
https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/athmane/mod_ruid2/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |pahan@hubbitus.info Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |pahan@hubbitus.info
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) pahan@hubbitus.info --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/pasha/SOFT/Review/mod_ruid2/1089561-mod_ruid2/licensecheck.txt [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [?]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines LICENSE file must be marked as %license not just %doc https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Li...
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [-]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: mod_ruid2-0.9.8-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm mod_ruid2-0.9.8-1.fc21.src.rpm mod_ruid2.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) suexec -> execute mod_ruid2.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US suexec -> execute mod_ruid2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) suexec -> execute mod_ruid2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US suexec -> execute mod_ruid2.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 23: Invalid version (double separator '-'): missing-httpd-devel: Requires: httpd-mmn = missing-httpd-devel 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- $ rpmlint * mod_ruid2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) suexec -> execute mod_ruid2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US suexec -> execute mod_ruid2.src: E: specfile-error warning: line 23: Invalid version (double separator '-'): missing-httpd-devel: Requires: httpd-mmn = missing-httpd-devel mod_ruid2.spec: E: specfile-error warning: line 23: Invalid version (double separator '-'): missing-httpd-devel: Requires: httpd-mmn = missing-httpd-devel 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
Requires -------- mod_ruid2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(mod_ruid2) httpd httpd-mmn libc.so.6()(64bit) libcap.so.2()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- mod_ruid2: config(mod_ruid2) mod_ruid2 mod_ruid2(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- mod_ruid2: /usr/lib64/httpd/modules/mod_ruid2.so
Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mod-ruid/mod_ruid2/mod_ruid2-0.9.8.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f8a178daf3bccf86e7e50e3224efc52165200470dece7b701466c5fbf1944b19 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f8a178daf3bccf86e7e50e3224efc52165200470dece7b701466c5fbf1944b19
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1089561 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
So, package is fine.
Found one stop issue but trivial to fix: [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines LICENSE file must be marked as %license not just %doc https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Li...
Please fix it before import.
Also, you include upstream README and preconfigured configs, so I would advise you to include README.Fedora with 2-3 phrases how to enable and start use it.
PACKAGE APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
--- Comment #4 from Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com ---
Thank you for reviewing the package.
(In reply to Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) from comment #3) [...]
Found one stop issue but trivial to fix: [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines LICENSE file must be marked as %license not just %doc https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
fixed in -2
Please fix it before import.
Also, you include upstream README and preconfigured configs, so I would advise you to include README.Fedora with 2-3 phrases how to enable and start use it.
The pkg already includes a config file mod_ruid2.conf , all lines are commented and kept as example (or snippets) for actual configuration.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Athmane Madjoudj athmanem@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mod_ruid2 Short Description: A suexec module for Apache Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/projects/mod-ruid/ Owners: athmane Branches: f20 f21 f22 el5 el6 epel7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-03-23 03:09:40
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc22 |mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc21
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.fc21 |mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el7
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1089561
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el7 |mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el6
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- mod_ruid2-0.9.8-2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla