[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-03-26 17:52:41 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22, bind-9.10.2-1.fc22, dhcp-4.3.2-2.fc22, dnsperf-2.0.0.0-15.fc22, bind-dyndb-ldap-7.0-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22, bind-9.10.2-1.fc22, dhcp-4.3.2-2.fc22, dnsperf-2.0.0.0-15.fc22, bind-dyndb-ldap-7.0-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428
--- Comment #6 from Luboš Uhliarik luhli...@redhat.com ---
Good job Tomas, I can confirm that all marked problems have been fixed,
so I'm approving this package.
(In reply to Tomas Hozza from comment #5)
(In reply to Luboš Uhliarik from comment #4)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, Public +domain ISC, BSD
(3
clause) ISC, BSD (3 clause), BSD (2 clause) ISC, ISC, BSD (2
clause). 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck
in /tmp/1199428-bind99/licensecheck.txt
- multiple licences in source files, but only license in SPEC file
- some of source files don't have any license
All software from ISC is released under ISC license.
https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/
Based on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary
rpm.
Using licensecheck on files installed by binary RPMs I see there ISC, Public
domain and BSD.
So I changed the license to ISC and BSD and Public Domain. I also added
explanation as a comment before License: field.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/bind99, /usr/lib64/bind99
Thanks for catching this. I added those to the %files section
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/bind99,
/usr/lib64/bind99
- please solve permissions for directories /usr/include/bind99 and
/usr/lib64/bind99
same as the above.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
- option --localstatedir in SPEC file in %configure part uses hardcoded
directory
name (/var), use macro %{_localstatedir} instead
fixed
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 440320 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' '
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Luboš Uhliarik luhli...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com --- Thank you Lubos for the review! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: bind99 Short Description: The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) DNS (Domain Name System) libraries Upstream URL: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/ Owners: thozza jpopelka Branches: f22 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Luboš Uhliarik luhli...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428
--- Comment #5 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Luboš Uhliarik from comment #4)
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, Public +domain ISC, BSD
(3
clause) ISC, BSD (3 clause), BSD (2 clause) ISC, ISC, BSD (2
clause). 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /tmp/1199428-bind99/licensecheck.txt
- multiple licences in source files, but only license in SPEC file
- some of source files don't have any license
All software from ISC is released under ISC license.
https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/
Based on
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm.
Using licensecheck on files installed by binary RPMs I see there ISC, Public
domain and BSD.
So I changed the license to ISC and BSD and Public Domain. I also added
explanation as a comment before License: field.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/bind99, /usr/lib64/bind99
Thanks for catching this. I added those to the %files section
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/bind99,
/usr/lib64/bind99
- please solve permissions for directories /usr/include/bind99 and
/usr/lib64/bind99
same as the above.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
- option --localstatedir in SPEC file in %configure part uses hardcoded
directory
name (/var), use macro %{_localstatedir} instead
fixed
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 440320 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Luboš Uhliarik luhli...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428
--- Comment #4 from Luboš Uhliarik luhli...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
GPL (v2 or later), Unknown or generated, Public +domain ISC, BSD (3
clause) ISC, BSD (3 clause), BSD (2 clause) ISC, ISC, BSD (2
clause). 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
in /tmp/1199428-bind99/licensecheck.txt
- multiple licences in source files, but only license in SPEC file
- some of source files don't have any license
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/include/bind99, /usr/lib64/bind99
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/bind99,
/usr/lib64/bind99
- please solve permissions for directories /usr/include/bind99 and
/usr/lib64/bind99
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
- option --localstatedir in SPEC file in %configure part uses hardcoded
directory
name (/var), use macro %{_localstatedir} instead
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 440320 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in bind99-libs
, bind99-license , bind99-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Luboš Uhliarik luhli...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review- |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|medium |high -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 --- Comment #3 from Luboš Uhliarik luhli...@redhat.com --- rpmlint OUTPUT: bind99.src: E: summary-too-long C The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) DNS (Domain Name System) server libraries 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Luboš Uhliarik luhli...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 --- Comment #1 from Jiri Popelka jpope...@redhat.com --- I checked the spec quickly: %description devel These headers and libraries are used for building *build* ISC DHCP. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is no longer necessary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 --- Comment #2 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jiri Popelka from comment #1) I checked the spec quickly: %description devel These headers and libraries are used for building *build* ISC DHCP. %defattr(-,root,root,-) is no longer necessary. I used spell check, but unfortunately the spelling was right. The rest were leftovers from ancient BIND SPEC ;) I fixed all of those. Spec URL: https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99.spec SRPM URL: https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99-9.9.7-2.fc21.src.rpm Thanks Jiri! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|luhli...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1199428] Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1199428 Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1184173 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1184173 [Bug 1184173] dhclient fails to renew lease, results in dropped IPv4 network connection -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
