[Bug 634906] Review Request: http-parser - HTTP request/response parser for C

[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=634906

--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-09-20 06:19:37 EDT ---
Koji scratch build for F-13:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2476815

REVIEW:

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

- rpmlint isnt' silent:

work ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/http-parser-*
http-parser.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syscalls -> miscalls,
systemically, scallops
http-parser.i686: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/libhttp_parser.so.0.3
http-parser.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin
/usr/lib/libhttp_parser.so.0.3
http-parser.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun
/usr/lib/libhttp_parser.so.0.3
http-parser-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US htt -> ht, hit,
hat
http-parser-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.
work ~:

In particular,  ldconfig-related messages are definitely must be addressed (see
my notes below).

- The package must be named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
Please, mention particular git commit ID in the package's version.

+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.

- The package doesn't fully meet the Packaging Guidelines:
1. The mentioned above issue with missing ldconfig invocation in %post and
%postun sections
2. The package's versioning scheme must contain git commit id.

+ 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. (MIT)
+ 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 must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. I can't use md5/sha256 here since tarball contains
timestamps, uids, gids and other mutable data. I just diffed them against local
copy (fetched as described in spec).

Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/BUILD: diff -ru http-parser.orig/ http-parser
Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/BUILD: 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji link above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.

- 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. See my notes above.

+ 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 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.
+ Header files are in a -devel package.
0 No static libraries.
+  The library files that end in .so (without suffix) placed in a -devel
package.
+ 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.
+ All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8.

OK, sommarizing things - I've found only two issues - ldconfig and git id in
version. Please fix them and I'll finish my 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.