[Bug 532590] Review Request: yaws - Web server for dynamic content written in Erlang

[bugzilla at redhat.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=532590

--- Comment #18 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-10-20 14:13:46 EDT ---
REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is not silent but all its messages may be ignored.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: rpmlint ../RPMS/ppc/yaws-*
yaws.ppc: W: no-soname /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/setuid_drv.so
yaws.ppc: W: no-soname /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/priv/lib/yaws_sendfile_drv.so

^^^ this doesn't affect the runtime of the application. These libraries are
designed to be dlopened. 

yaws.ppc: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/yaws_api.5.gz 201:
warning: `yaws' not defined
yaws.ppc: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/yaws.conf.5.gz 231:
warning: `pp' not defined
yaws.ppc: W: manual-page-warning /usr/share/man/man5/yaws.conf.5.gz 289:
warning: `..' not defined

^^^ I'll report upstream about these warnings.

yaws.ppc: E: zero-length /usr/lib/erlang/lib/yaws/src/charset.def

^^^ this file is autogenerated and should be removed. In fact I'd rather to
remove the entire %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/yaws/src contents - this is just a copy
of the original sources, but I'm leaving it to you to decide. Just removing
%{_libdir}/erlang/lib/yaws/src/charset.def would be enough to fix this
particular warning.

yaws-devel.ppc: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig,
con-fig, configure

^^^ false positive

yaws-devel.ppc: W: no-documentation

^^^ exactly what it says - no documentation for this package so far.

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SPECS: 

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.

- The package does not fully meet the Packaging Guidelines. You need 

a) Actually add erlang-ibrowse as a runtime dependency.
b) remove empty %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/yaws/examples directories
c) I just found that this package requires erlang >= R13B (missing
httpc:request/1, httpc:request/4 and httpc:set_options/1 functions, and I'm not
sure that this can be fixed easily). So no luck for poor EL-5 users for now.
d) remove empty %{_libdir}/erlang/lib/yaws/src/charset.def (or even entire
%{_libdir}/erlang/lib/yaws/src/ )

+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: sha256sum yaws-1.89.tar.gz*
577c8adde339b700373b83b57b7eca952a41624fcf5f963e43977399de54f170 
yaws-1.89.tar.gz
577c8adde339b700373b83b57b7eca952a41624fcf5f963e43977399de54f170 
yaws-1.89.tar.gz.1
sulaco ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (my ppc on F-12).
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files in some of the dynamic linker's default paths.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
0 The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
+ The pkgconfig(.pc) file is stored in a -devel package.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
+ The -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).


So, please, fix the remaining four issues and I'll finish this review.

-- 
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.