[Bug 619237] Review Request: redis - A persistent key-value database

Tue Aug 17 02:30:34 UTC 2010

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=619237

Mark McKinstry <mmckinst at nexcess.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mmckinst at nexcess.net

--- Comment #2 from Mark McKinstry <mmckinst at nexcess.net> 2010-08-16 22:30:32 EDT ---
Simon,

I'm not an official package maintainer so this is an informal review.

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

MUST
----

[X] rpmlint must be run on every package

$ rpmlint redis-1.2.6-1.fc14.src.rpm
redis.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US memcached -> cached,
mimicked, coached
redis.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://redis.googlecode.com/files/redis-1.2.6.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint redis.spec 
redis.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://redis.googlecode.com/files/redis-1.2.6.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not Found
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ 

[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
[?] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .

hiredis.c, hiredis.h don't have licensing or copyright information in them. I'm
not sure if this poses a problem or not.

[X] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. 

They're both 0c5355e57606523f9e8ce816db5e542f.

[X] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
[-] 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 
[-] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[-] 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.
[-] 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. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. 
[X] Each package must consistently use macros. 
[X] The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
[-] 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). 
[-] 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. 
[-] Header files must be in a -devel package. 
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
[-] 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. 
[-] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} 
[X] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed
in the spec if they are built.
[-] 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. 

SHOULD
------
[-] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[-] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. 
[X] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 
[?] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. 
[X] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package
should not segfault instead of running, for example.

I built and tested redis on FC13. I did some of the first examples from
http://code.google.com/p/redis/wiki/TwitterAlikeExample and it works fine.

[-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and
left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. 
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency. 
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is
usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. 
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself. 
[X] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't,
work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

Would be nice if upstream included these too.

COMMENTS
--------
1. You could use the tarball's redis.conf and use sed to get it to the desired
state. The following will do it for you: sed -i -e 's|daemonize no|daemonize
yes|' -e 's|pidfile /var/run/redis\.pid|pidfile /var/run/redis/redis.pid|' -e
's|# bind 127.0.0.1|bind 127.0.0.1|' -e 's|loglevel debug|loglevel notice|' -e
's|logfile stdout|logfile /var/log/redis/redis.log|' -e 's|dir \./|dir
/var/lib/redis/|' ./redis.conf

2. You could replace 'redis' with the %{name} macro in a lot of places in your
spec if you want.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.