[Bug 646686] Review Request: mod_xsendfile - Apache module to send files efficiently
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Apr 25 17:14:53 UTC 2011
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=646686
Robert Scheck <redhat at linuxnetz.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |redhat-bugzilla at linuxnetz.d
| |e
Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck <redhat at linuxnetz.de> 2011-04-25 13:14:50 EDT ---
Okay, here we go:
[ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/mod_xsendfile-*
mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xsendfile ->
landfill, defilement
mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sendfile -> send
file, send-file, Sendai
mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mmap -> map, m map,
Map
mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US php -> fp, pp, hp
mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl, peel,
perk
mod_xsendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cgi -> cig, chi, cg
mod_xsendfile.src: W: invalid-license ASL2
cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn: No such file or directory
mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xsendfile ->
landfill, defilement
mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sendfile -> send
file, send-file, Sendai
mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mmap -> map, m
map, Map
mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US php -> fp, pp, hp
mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US perl -> Perl,
peel, perk
mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cgi -> cig, chi,
cg
mod_xsendfile.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL2
mod_xsendfile-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) xsendfile ->
landfill, defilement
mod_xsendfile-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
xsendfile -> landfill, defilement
mod_xsendfile-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license ASL2
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings.
$
-> Ignore spelling errors, aspell doesn't know these technical words
-> License error is addressed below
-> Ignore "cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn", that's fine for mod_*
[ OK ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ ?? ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[FAILED] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines.
-> Replace "ASL2" by "ASL 2.0"
[FAILED] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
-> Replace "ASL2" by "ASL 2.0"
[ N/A ] MUST: 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.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[ OK ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[ OK ] MUST: 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package,
please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
-> 4b83b0e1a0c043c4e76ee99685c35110 mod_xsendfile-0.12.tar.bz2
-> 4b83b0e1a0c043c4e76ee99685c35110 mod_xsendfile-0.12.tar.bz2.1
[ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary
rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[ N/A ] MUST: 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.
[ OK ] MUST: 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.
[ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
[ N/A ] MUST: 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.
[ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ N/A ] MUST: 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.
[ OK ] MUST: 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.
[ OK ] MUST: 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)
[ OK ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should
be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section
must include a %defattr(...) line.
[ OK ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ N/A ] MUST: 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).
[ OK ] MUST: 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.
[ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[ N/A ] MUST: 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.
[ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}
%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[ N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must
be removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
[ N/A ] MUST: 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.
[ OK ] MUST: 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.
[ OK ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[FAILED] 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.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if
available.
[ OK ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ OK ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[ SKIP ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for
example.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This
is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: 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. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg
itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or
gdb.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: 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.
[ N/A ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
- Please correct the wrong license tag in the *.spec file (that's a must)
- Please consider replacing "cp -p" by "install -p -m 644" (keeping/setting
attributes).
- Please advise upstream to ship a separate file containing the license
additionally (that's not a must for 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.
More information about the package-review
mailing list