[Bug 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499

Pavel Šimerda (pavlix)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-01-05 06:42:21



-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #26 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix)  ---

Spec URL: http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//netresolve.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//netresolve-0.0.1-0.7.2015git.fc24.src.rpm

Description:
Netresolve is a package for non-blocking network name resolution via backends
intended as a replacement for name service switch based name resolution in
glibc as well as a testbed for future glibc improvements.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #27 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
pavlix's scratch build of netresolve-0.0.1-0.7.2015git.fc24.src.rpm for
rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11792116

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #24 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
pavlix's scratch build of netresolve-0.0.1-0.6.20151015git.fc24.src.rpm for
rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11753550

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #25 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
pavlix's scratch build of netresolve-0.0.1-0.6.20151015git.fc24.src.rpm for
rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11754048

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #23 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
pavlix's scratch build of netresolve-0.0.1-0.6.20151015git.fc24.src.rpm for
rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11728303

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #22 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
pavlix's scratch build of netresolve-0.0.1-0.6.20151015git.fc24.src.rpm for
rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11725080

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #21 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix)  ---
(In reply to Jiri Popelka from comment #20)
> [!]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
>   Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in netresolve-core, netresolve-compat,
>   netresolve-backends-compat, netresolve-backends-aresdns, netresolve-
>   backends-avahi, netresolve-backends-ubdns
>   See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries

OK.

> [!]: 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 %license.
>   Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
>   See:
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

OK.

> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>  Note: baskends/asyncns.c is LGPLv2+ licensed

TODO: Will fix upstream and import the new changes.

> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
>  Note: you need %license COPYING in each %files section
>  (except the main package and -tools/-compat subpackages AFAICT)

TODO: Will reconsider the dependencies and fix it.

> [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>  Note: It'd better to replace for example
>  - Requires: netresolve-core
>  + Requires: netresolve-core%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
>  (the same for all subpackages)

OK.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #20 from Jiri Popelka  ---
Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues:
===
[!]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
  Note: /sbin/ldconfig not called in netresolve-core, netresolve-compat,
  netresolve-backends-compat, netresolve-backends-aresdns, netresolve-
  backends-avahi, netresolve-backends-ubdns
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Shared_Libraries

[!]: 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 %license.
  Note: License file COPYING is marked as %doc instead of %license
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text

[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: baskends/asyncns.c is LGPLv2+ licensed

[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
 Note: you need %license COPYING in each %files section
 (except the main package and -tools/-compat subpackages AFAICT)

[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 Note: It'd better to replace for example
 - Requires: netresolve-core
 + Requires: netresolve-core%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
 (the same for all subpackages)

= 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[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.
 baskends/asyncns.c is LGPLv2+ licensed
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
 you need %license COPYING in each %files section
 (except the main package and -tools/-compat subpackages AFAICT)
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[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]: 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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[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]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane.
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
 It'd better to replace for example
 - Requires: netresolve-core
 + Requires: netresolve-core%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
 (for all subpackages)
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: 

[Bug 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #19 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix)  ---

Spec URL: http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//netresolve.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//netresolve-0.0.1-0.6.20151015git.fc24.src.rpm

Description:
Netresolve is a package for non-blocking network name resolution via backends
intended as a replacement for name service switch based name resolution in
glibc as well as a testbed for future glibc improvements.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #18 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
pavlix's scratch build of netresolve-0.0.1-0.5.20150930git.fc24.src.rpm for
rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11412615

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499

Jiri Popelka  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||jpope...@redhat.com



--- Comment #17 from Jiri Popelka  ---
%define snapshot_suffix .20150923git

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#.25global_preferred_over_.25define

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499

Pavel Šimerda (pavlix)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|needinfo?(psimerda@redhat.c |
   |om) |



--- Comment #16 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix)  ---
For completeness, my rawhide build ran without problem including the tests.

(In reply to Tomas Hozza from comment #14)
> I tried also COPR:
> http://copr-fe.cloud.fedoraproject.org/coprs/thozza/netresolve/build/118060/

The coper build shows that the tests are sensitive to the existence of
'localhost4' in '/etc/hosts'. I will fix that.

(In reply to Tomas Hozza from comment #13)
> Created attachment 1076550 [details]
> Build log
> 
> Mock build fails. Some tests seem to be failing. Please resolve the issue.

From the build log:

+ diff -u /dev/fd/63 ./tests/data/localhost
++ libtool execute valgrind --leak-check=full --error-exitcode=1 ./netresolve
--backends hosts --node localhost

--- /dev/fd/632015-09-24 15:09:48.096146394 +0200
+++ ./tests/data/localhost2015-09-17 22:47:15.0 +0200
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 response netresolve 0.0.1
 name localhost
+ip ::1 any any 0 0 0 0
 ip 127.0.0.1 any any 0 0 0 0
 secure

The diff above shows that '/etc/hosts' lacks IPv6 loopback address for
'localhost' name. That is IMO a bug in the build environment rather then the
test. Some of the tests depend on the build environment but in most cases this
is intentional. The objective is to also test that the system configuration
allows netresolve to provide correct results.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #15 from Upstream Release Monitoring 
 ---
pavlix's scratch build of netresolve-0.0.1-0.5.20150930git.fc24.src.rpm for
rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11278160

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499

Pavel Šimerda (pavlix)  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||883152 (dualstack)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=883152
[Bug 883152] IPv6 and dual-stack networking sanity tracker
-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499

Tomas Hozza  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||psime...@redhat.com
  Flags||needinfo?(psimerda@redhat.c
   ||om)



--- Comment #14 from Tomas Hozza  ---
I tried also COPR:
http://copr-fe.cloud.fedoraproject.org/coprs/thozza/netresolve/build/118060/

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #13 from Tomas Hozza  ---
Created attachment 1076550
  --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1076550=edit
Build log

Mock build fails. Some tests seem to be failing. Please resolve the issue.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #12 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix)  ---

Spec URL: http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//netresolve.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//netresolve-0.0.1-0.5.20150923git.fc24.src.rpm

Description:
Netresolve is a package for non-blocking network name resolution via backends
intended as a replacement for name service switch based name resolution in
glibc as well as a testbed for future glibc improvements.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499

Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||tho...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tho...@redhat.com



--- Comment #11 from Tomas Hozza tho...@redhat.com ---
Please update the SRPM with to the latest git HEAD.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #6 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix) psime...@redhat.com ---
(In reply to Christopher Meng from comment #5)
 Sorry, after running the building process for almost 4 hrs it still couldn't
 get terminated, so I can't review this package on my computer. Please find
 other reviewers to help you step forward.

No problem. I'm just curious about the build process as the package is very
small with few dependencies, so this is the last package I would expect to take
a long compilation time.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
Yes it's a bug IMO. I haven't saved the build log so I don't know what happened
still, but if you want me to help I can run the build process again.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #8 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix) psime...@redhat.com ---

Spec URL: http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//netresolve.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//netresolve-0.0.1-0.3.20140422git.fc21.src.rpm

Description:
Netresolve is a package for nonblocking network name resolution via backends
intended as a replacement for name service switch based name resolution in
glibc.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #9 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix) psime...@redhat.com ---
This package built on koji: 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6870289

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #10 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix) psime...@redhat.com ---
I just had to remove the call to tests. I don't know exactly why the test
freezes during the build.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #3 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix) psime...@redhat.com ---
*** Bug 1099435 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #4 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix) psime...@redhat.com ---

Spec URL: http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//netresolve.spec
SRPM URL:
http://pavlix.fedorapeople.org//netresolve-0.0.1-0.2.20140422git.fc21.src.rpm

Description:
Netresolve is a package for nonblocking network name resolution via backends
intended as a replacement for name service switch based name resolution in
glibc.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499

Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|NEW
 CC|i...@cicku.me  |
   Assignee|i...@cicku.me  |nob...@fedoraproject.org



--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng i...@cicku.me ---
Sorry, after running the building process for almost 4 hrs it still couldn't
get terminated, so I can't review this package on my computer. Please find
other reviewers to help you step forward.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499

Christopher Meng cicku...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||cicku...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|cicku...@gmail.com
  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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #2 from Pavel Šimerda (pavlix) psime...@redhat.com ---
Created attachment 889255
  -- https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=889255action=edit
changes

(In reply to Michael Schwendt from comment #1)
  URL: https://sourceware.org/netresolve/
 
 Forbidden
 You don't have permission to access /netresolve/ on this server.

Yes, the upstream website hasn't been launched yet but I received numerous
requests to come up with a Fedora package.

  Source0: netresolve-0.0.1.tar.xz
 
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source

It is a git snapshot and the sourceware git doesn't offer tarballs. I already
contacted sourceware maintainers about it.

  %package devel
  Summary: Development files for getdns
  Group: Development/Libraries
 
 If you set the optional Group tag for this subpackage, why is it missing in
 the base package? Group: System Environment/Libraries
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag

Added.

  Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
 
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package

Fixed.

  Requires: pkgconfig
 
 There are automatic pkgconfig dependencies for a long time. Query the built
 packages. You would only need this explicit dep for EL5. But the package
 does not include any .pc file, so the dependency is superfluous currently.

Removed.

  %post
  /sbin/ldconfig
 
  %postun
  /sbin/ldconfig
 
 If you don't to execute anything else, consider executing ldconfig directly
 instead of running it within a /bin/sh script:
 
   %post -p /sbin/ldconfig
 
   %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig

Done.

  %doc NEWS COPYING
 
 Why not include README and TODO?

Added.

 Instead, the NEWS file contents are rather useless so far. 

Let's get ready for the releases.

 Btw, it declares this as 0.0.1, but if there is a 0.0.1 release, the RPM
 package ought not apply the pre-release snapshot versioning scheme, but
 apply the post-release versioning scheme:

This is a 0.0.1 pre-release package, no release exists, yet.

 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning
 
 
  PKG_CHECK_MODULES([ARES], [libcares])
 
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
 Guidelines#BuildRequires_based_on_pkg-config

Fixed.

  build.log
 
 Output is non-verbose. One cannot see whether Fedora's %optflags are used,
 for example, and one cannot verify the compiler/preprocessor settings.

Fixed.

 Is the included tests directory suitable for running it at build-time in
 the spec %check section?

Definitely yes.

  checking for ARES... yes
  checking for ub_ctx_create in -llibunbound... no
 
 This check fails, but it linked with libunbound nevertheless. Suspicious.

Fixed upstream.

https://sourceware.org/git/?p=netresolve.git;a=commitdiff;h=371bf5d950a579625d474c8526e6a4cf3688f73c

Will attach new spec and srpm later.

-- 
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 1090499] Review Request: netresolve - Generic name resolution library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1090499



--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt bugs.mich...@gmx.net ---
Consider pointing the fedora-review tool at this ticket. Run fedora-review -b
1090499. It evaluates the SRPM URL: and Spec URL: lines and performs many
helpful checks you ought to be interested in.


A brief look at the package:


 URL: https://sourceware.org/netresolve/

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /netresolve/ on this server.


 Source0: netresolve-0.0.1.tar.xz

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Referencing_Source


 %package devel
 Summary: Development files for getdns
 Group: Development/Libraries

If you set the optional Group tag for this subpackage, why is it missing in the
base package? Group: System Environment/Libraries
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Group_tag


 Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package


 Requires: pkgconfig

There are automatic pkgconfig dependencies for a long time. Query the built
packages. You would only need this explicit dep for EL5. But the package does
not include any .pc file, so the dependency is superfluous currently.


 %post
 /sbin/ldconfig

 %postun
 /sbin/ldconfig

If you don't to execute anything else, consider executing ldconfig directly
instead of running it within a /bin/sh script:

  %post -p /sbin/ldconfig

  %postun -p /sbin/ldconfig


 %doc NEWS COPYING

Why not include README and TODO?

Instead, the NEWS file contents are rather useless so far. 

Btw, it declares this as 0.0.1, but if there is a 0.0.1 release, the RPM
package ought not apply the pre-release snapshot versioning scheme, but apply
the post-release versioning scheme:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Versioning


 PKG_CHECK_MODULES([ARES], [libcares])

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_based_on_pkg-config


 build.log

Output is non-verbose. One cannot see whether Fedora's %optflags are used, for
example, and one cannot verify the compiler/preprocessor settings.


Is the included tests directory suitable for running it at build-time in the
spec %check section?


 checking for ARES... yes
 checking for ub_ctx_create in -llibunbound... no

This check fails, but it linked with libunbound nevertheless. Suspicious.

-- 
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