[Bug 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||varnish-agent-2.1-5.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-19 02:17:37 --- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- varnish-agent-2.1-5.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|varnish-agent-2.1-5.fc20|varnish-agent-2.1-5.fc19 --- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- varnish-agent-2.1-5.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 --- Comment #17 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 --- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- varnish-agent-2.1-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/varnish-agent-2.1-5.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 --- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- varnish-agent-2.1-5.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/varnish-agent-2.1-5.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- varnish-agent-2.1-5.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189
--- Comment #13 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #12)
Some remarks, full review below:
- The CFLAGS=%{optflags} in %configure CFLAGS=%{optflags} is not
necessary, the %configure macro already includes the CFLAGS, see rpm -E
%configure.
Done.
- [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified. = the patch descriptions could be improved
- Would updating to 2.2.0 RC2 remove some downstream patches?
Some have been integrated indeed. I was considering the RC2 on rawhide after a
stable version landed in Fedora.
- Non-applied patches:
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0:
vagent.secret_privileges.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: vagent.configure.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: vagent.automake.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: vagent.test_suite.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch4:
vagent.disable_ban_tests.patch
False positive, the %autosetup macro applies the patches. Please check the logs
of the koji build from comment 11.
Overall, remove the CFLAGS=%{optflags} and look at the non-applied patches
issue, then I'm happy :)
Spec URL:
https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/varnish-agent.spec
SRPM URL:
https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/varnish-agent-2.1-5.fc19.src.rpm
--
You are receiving this mail because:
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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com --- All ok, approved! -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 --- Comment #15 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- Remember that I still owe you one review for this one, so do not hesitate to ask me when you need a reviewer :) -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #16 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: varnish-agent Short Description: Administration agent for Varnish Cache Owners: dridi Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 --- Comment #11 from Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com --- I finally have a new submission! Spec URL: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/varnish-agent.spec SRPM URL: https://bitbucket.org/dridi/fedora_packages/downloads/varnish-agent-2.1-4.fc19.src.rpm ChangeLog: - Added a patch to make the test suites work offline - Added a patch to disable the ban test suite - Removed the default -S option from the service http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6268014 The race condition was just the tip of the iceberg. There were more issues in the test suite: unnecessary access to the Internet. The race condition in itself doesn't seem to belong to this package. Varnish has a background thread that handles cache invalidation based on bans. Some ban-related tests could fail between the moment a ban was created, and the moment it was checked. The problem is it still happens even when you disable the background thread, so my guess is that it's a bug in varnish, not the agent. This issue has already been discussed in the pull request mentioned in comment 6 and upstream is working on it. The relative slowness of the ARM builders emphasizes this issue. For this reason, I have disabled the ban test suite until we (probably upstream) find out what's wrong. -- You are receiving this mail because: 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 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189
--- Comment #12 from Sandro Mani manisan...@gmail.com ---
Some remarks, full review below:
- The CFLAGS=%{optflags} in %configure CFLAGS=%{optflags} is not necessary,
the %configure macro already includes the CFLAGS, see rpm -E %configure.
- [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
= the patch descriptions could be improved
- Would updating to 2.2.0 RC2 remove some downstream patches?
- Non-applied patches:
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: vagent.secret_privileges.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: vagent.configure.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch2: vagent.automake.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch3: vagent.test_suite.patch
varnish-agent.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch4: vagent.disable_ban_tests.patch
Overall, remove the CFLAGS=%{optflags} and look at the non-applied patches
issue, then I'm happy :)
Full review:
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]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
BSD (3 clause), BSD (2 clause), Unknown or generated. 10 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/sandro/.Data/Desktop/1008189-varnish-agent/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[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.
[ ]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
[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:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
[Bug 1008189] Review Request: varnish-agent - Administration agent for Varnish Cache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1008189 Dridi Boukelmoune dridi.boukelmo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Alias||varnish-agent -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VHtLgjRY4ta=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
