[Bug 1175293] New: Review Request: publicsuffix-list - Cross-vendor public domain suffix database
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
Bug ID: 1175293 Summary: Review Request: publicsuffix-list - Cross-vendor public domain suffix database Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: yaneti@declera.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/publicsuffix-list/publicsuffix-list.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/publicsuffix-list/publicsuffix-list-20141124-1.fc... Description: The Public Suffix List is a cross-vendor initiative to provide an accurate list of domain name suffixes, maintained by the hard work of Mozilla volunteers and by submissions from registries, to whom we are very grateful. Software using the Public Suffix List will be able to determine where cookies may and may not be set, protecting the user from being tracked across sites.
Fedora Account System Username: yaneti
This is an attempt to provide a single, authoritative for Fedora, copy of the publicsuffix list that is already used in perl-Mozilla-PublicSuffix, libpsl, ghc-publicsuffixlist.
Similar in spirit to the hardware ids in hwdata.
I'll cc the maintainers of the affected pacakges, to see what they thinnk about the idea.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
--- Comment #1 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/publicsuffix-list/publicsuffix-list.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/publicsuffix-list/publicsuffix-list-20141218-1.fc...
20141218-1 - Today's revision. Add license file - 20141218-1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- This rings some bell - which packages are affected?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
--- Comment #3 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #2)
This rings some bell - which packages are affected?
perl-Mozilla-PublicSuffix, libpsl, ghc-publicsuffixlist are the once I noticed. The last one is under your wing.
Admittedly both the perl package and libpsl "compile-in" the list at buildtime. don't know about the haskell package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- (In reply to Yanko Kaneti from comment #3)
ghc-publicsuffixlist
Ah yes of course!
The Haskell library contains:
https://github.com/litherum/publicsuffixlist/blob/master/effective_tld_names...
but it seems serialized into:
https://github.com/litherum/publicsuffixlist/blob/master/Network/PublicSuffi... [420KB]
though there is a build flag (disabled by default) to use an external file at runtime. So it could work. :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
--- Comment #5 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/publicsuffix-list/publicsuffix-list.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/publicsuffix-list/publicsuffix-list-20141223-1.fc...
20141223-1 - Today's revision - 20141223-1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
--- Comment #6 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- Spec URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/publicsuffix-list/publicsuffix-list.spec SRPM URL: http://declera.com/~yaneti/publicsuffix-list/publicsuffix-list-20141230-1.fc...
20141230-1 - Today's revision - 20141230-1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mizdebsk@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mizdebsk@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
--- Comment #7 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- It just occurred to me that since this is updated almost every week, perhaps a /var/lib model with an update script would be a better fit... Something like clamav-data or spamasassin's sa-update.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- (In reply to Yanko Kaneti from comment #7)
It just occurred to me that since this is updated almost every week, perhaps a /var/lib model with an update script would be a better fit... Something like clamav-data or spamasassin's sa-update.
It's up to you as maintainer, but I would probably choose %_datadir as other pkgs (tzdata, hwdata, ...) ship data like this in /usr/share. I'm submitting review for current SRPM as-is:
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem
[x] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[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.
[-] 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. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[x] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[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. Apply common sense.
[x] 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.
[x] 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.
[x] 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. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations.)
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[x] Each package must consistently use macros.
[x] The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[x] 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.
[x] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[x] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[x] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[x] 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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time.
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
rpmlint output --------------
publicsuffix-list.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- Yeah, on a third thought, unless this update machinery has some versioning smarts the /var/lib+update model quickly becomes unsupportable.
Thanks for the review.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: publicsuffix-list Short Description: Cross-vendor public domain suffix database Owners: yaneti Branches: f21 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1183782
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1183782 [Bug 1183782] httpcomponents-client: Unbundle publicsuffix-list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- publicsuffix-list-20141230-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/publicsuffix-list-20141230-1.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
--- Comment #12 from Yanko Kaneti yaneti@declera.com --- So, its imported. I've removed the bundling from perl-Mozilla-PublicSuffix. Filed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184081 for libpsl and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184082 for ghc-publicsuffix with a requiest to consider unbundling.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- publicsuffix-list-20141230-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |publicsuffix-list-20141230- | |1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-01-29 23:38:18
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- publicsuffix-list-20141230-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1184081
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184081 [Bug 1184081] Unbundle the publixsuffix list
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1175293
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1184082
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184082 [Bug 1184082] Unbundle the publicsuffix list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla