[Bug 655582] Review Request: mod_cluster - Apache HTTPD based load balancer

[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=655582

Patrick Monnerat <pm at datasphere.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |pm at datasphere.ch
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #5 from Patrick Monnerat <pm at datasphere.ch> 2011-03-11 07:06:29 EST ---
rpmlint output:

*** mod_cluster.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

*** mod_cluster-1.1.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
mod_cluster.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httpd -> HTTP
mod_cluster.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jk -> j, k, ja
mod_cluster.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lifecycle -> life
cycle, life-cycle, lifestyle
mod_cluster.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://jboss.org/mod_cluster HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

*** mod_cluster-1.1.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
mod_cluster.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jk -> j, k, ja
mod_cluster.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lifecycle -> life
cycle, life-cycle, lifestyle
mod_cluster.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://jboss.org/mod_cluster HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

*** mod_cluster-debuginfo-1.1.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm
mod_cluster-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: http://jboss.org/mod_cluster
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


+=OK, -=Not OK, X=Not applicable, ?=Not verifiable

MUST Items:
+ rpmlint output OK (see above)
+ named and versioned according to the Package Naming Guidelines
+ spec file name matches base package name
- dist tag is present and OK
+ complies with all the legal guidelines:
+  License: xyz valid, matches actual license
+  No known patent problems
+  No emulator, no firmware, no binary-only or prebuilt components
+  COPYING packaged as %doc
+ spec file is legible and written in american english
+ source matches upstream:
MD5: 3d4fec37ecfd1e5ec33cd147525cfe5e
SHA1: 2e42674ac8a5e43fba1b78a04b0087d9772e3afc
SHA256: 368a1db30abd0d7c4910e677f7eed4a5c0b1ca2c661cfb76ec6dee820b6c0058
+ latest version is being packaged
+ build root is correct
+ builds on at least one primary architecture
X known non-working architectures are listed in ExcludeArch (BZ #)
+ no missing BuildRequires (builds in mock)
X complies with translation/locale guidelines
X ldconfig calls in %post and %postun for packages containing shared libraries
+ no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths
+ no duplicated system libraries
+ package not relocatable
+ owns the directories and files it creates
+ doesn't own and directory it shouldn't
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ permissions correct, defattr used correctly
+ macros used consistently
+ no non-code content
X large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage
+ no %doc files required at runtime
X header files are in a -devel subpackage
X static libraries are in a -static subpackage
X suffixed library files have a matching .so file in the -devel subpackage
X pkgconfig files are in a -devel subpackage
X -devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
  Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}"
+ no .la files
X .desktop file present
X desktop-file-install is used in %install and the .desktop file passes
  validation
+ all filenames are valid UTF-8
+ complies with the FHS
- proper changelog, tags, BuildRoot, BuildRequires, Summary, Description
+ no macros in Summary and Description
+ no non-UTF-8 characters
- all relevant documentation included as %doc
+ compiler flags are appropriate (RPM_OPT_FLAGS are used)
+ %clean is present
+ no bundled software
+ debuginfo package is valid
+ no rpaths
+ complies to %config guidelines
X complies with init script guidelines
- no timestamp-clobbering file commands
- _smp_mflags used
X complies to web application guideline
X %check is present and all test pass
+ final provides and requires are sane
X no conflicts (installs properly)

SHOULD Items:
+ license already included upstream
X translations for description and summary are provided by upstream
+ package builds in mock
? submitter reports having successfully tested the package functionality
X scriptlets are sane
X subpackages other than -devel should require the base package using a
  fully versioned dependency
+ no file dependencies
X package contains man pages


Comments:
_ Use %global instead of %define
_ Release: 1%{dist} should be 1%{?dist}
_ You must add your name before the e-mail address in the changelog records:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Changelogs
_ Since there is a docs directory in the source, there is probably something
  to package as %doc. It seems to be a docbook, thus some processing is
  needed to generate ready-to-read files for the doc package (i.e.:
  html).
_ Use "cp -a" to preserve files timestamp.
_ Use "make %{?_smp_mflags}" or explain why you don't.
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Parallel_make


About the printf format warnings problem: in any case you should report it
upstream. In the meantime, and since the review policy does not explicitly
forbid a reviewer to do so, I can try to produce such a patch for you. Your
opinion ?

-- 
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.