[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Resolution|RAWHIDE |ERRATA -- 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=YkMpRPqurFa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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=WWtly05yjqa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #9) Thanks for fixing this tiny issue. koji build runs fine now, see: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5145002 I have no more comments and am happy with this version. Therefore this package is: APPROVED. Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: erlang-cowboy Short Description: Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang Owners: peter Branches: f18 f19 el6 InitialCC: -- 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=obZ2iIi5sna=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 --- Comment #11 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Wr8WmEw0HRa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- 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=cqo6Dgk7NDa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-4.fc18 -- 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=HVEdkfvFSla=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2013-03-22 10:43:23 -- 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=AVpl1Vy76qa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481
--- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to comment #7)
I guess removing the %{?_isa} in the Requires lines of the doc section
may solve this?
Yes, definitely! New package and spec-file:
* http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-cowboy.spec
* http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-4.fc19.src.rpm
--
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=IrUe6iVYNla=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com --- Thanks for fixing this tiny issue. koji build runs fine now, see: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5145002 I have no more comments and am happy with this version. Therefore this package is: APPROVED. -- 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=krzjQWRvb4a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 --- Comment #6 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- Thanks for digging into this, Jos! Here is a new spec ans srpm: * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-cowboy.spec * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-3.fc19.src.rpm -- 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=lWywVXxXuga=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481
--- Comment #7 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com ---
Thanks Peter for removing this one example from the doc package.
fedora-review -b 906481 -m fedora-18-x86_64
runs fine now, and I am happy with its output. No new issues are found here.
The tool generates 3 rpm's on my system:
erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-3.fc18.src.rpm
erlang-cowboy-doc-0.8.2-3.fc18.noarch.rpm
erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm
and rpmlint outputs seem fine:
$ rpmlint *.rpm
erlang-cowboy.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
extend-cowboy-0.8.2-0-gcc50778.tar.gz
erlang-cowboy.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-cowboy.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
Finally, I tested with koji, see:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5139210
This shows a final tiny issue:
BuildError: mismatch when analyzing erlang-cowboy-doc-0.8.2-3.fc18.noarch.rpm,
rpmdiff output was:
removed REQUIRES erlang-cowboy(x86-64) = 0.8.2-3.fc18
added REQUIRES erlang-cowboy(x86-32) = 0.8.2-3.fc18
so the noarch rpm's differ when compiled on 32 and 64 architectures because
they
depend on the fully versioned base package.
I guess removing the %{?_isa} in the Requires lines of the doc section
may solve this?
--
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=b37BMdFPg7a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481
--- Comment #3 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 4300800 bytes in 211 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
- end-of-line issue: see after the rpmlint output below
- timestamps are not preserved in install step, see comment below
Please address these points in your next version.
= MUST items =
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]: %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
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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
[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).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
==needs work, i.e. add '-p' option to install step
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
= EXTRA items =
Generic:
[!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #3) Package Review == Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: === - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 4300800 bytes in 211 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation Fixed (added *-doc subpackage). - end-of-line issue: see after the rpmlint output below Fixed. - timestamps are not preserved in install step, see comment below Fixed. Please address these points in your next version. Done! New spec-file and src.rpm: * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-cowboy.spec * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-2.fc19.src.rpm -- 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=kdQpyOs8xJa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481
--- Comment #5 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com ---
Thanks for your new version.
I retested with the fedora-review tool, and all mentioned points are fixed now,
but I found a few new issues:
The fedora-review tool now gives these extra items:
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in erlang-
cowboy-doc
==the doc package contains example scripts that will only run if the base
package is installed I think. Therefore the doc package should have
a fully versioned Requires for the base package. Please add this.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
==this automatically will be the case if the above Require is added
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 4 files.
==no longer an issue with this version
Rpmlint
---
Checking: erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm
erlang-cowboy-doc-0.8.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
erlang-cowboy.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-cowboy.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
==this is no problem. The no-binary thing is a known erlang 'feature'.
See for example the discussion in comment 2 of bug #906473
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint erlang-cowboy erlang-cowboy-doc
erlang-cowboy.x86_64: E: no-binary
erlang-cowboy.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
erlang-cowboy.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/erlang-cowboy-0.8.2/examples/websocket/priv/static/jquery.min.js
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
==this one still complains about the line ending issue
It's not clear to me why.
Requires
...
erlang-cowboy-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
Because of the above rpmlint issue I looked at the content of this file
jquery.min.js and this one seems to have been downloaded from another project:
http://blog.jquery.com/2012/08/09/jquery-1-8-released/
According to: http://jquery.com/download/
the license for this file is MIT or GPL
clearly this needs to be added to the License field
of the spec file, probably with a comment referring to the
file in question.
looking at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#Bundling_of_multiple_projects
I feel a bit uneasy allowing this into the doc package, but a quick locate
shows more projects provide copies of this file:
locate jquery.min
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/django/contrib/admin/static/admin/js/jquery.min.js
/usr/share/transmission/web/javascript/jquery/jquery.min.js
/var/lib/mock/fedora-18-x86_64/root/usr/share/doc/erlang-cowboy-0.8.2/examples/websocket/priv/static/jquery.min.js
The python-django package is BSD licensed and includes jquery version 1.4.2
which also is dual licensed MIT and GPLv2.
No explanation is given in the spec file, so this seems not correct to me.
The transmission-common package refers in its specfile to the COPYING file
in which it is clearly stated that the package combines elements
that are MIT licensed and elements that are GPLv2 licensed.
This package includes jquery version 1.7.2
which also is dual licensed MIT and GPLv2.
I also noted that in this bug #857992 a discussion occurs on the packaging of
jquery in other packages. It seems here that the discussion on unbundling them
is still ongoing.
Concluding, because it is clear the jquery code in this erlang-cowboy is part
of the example documentation, I will not reject your package because of it,
but would feel more comfortable if you would just remove this particular
example from the doc package.
--
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=rcUMPzt91xa=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||josdek...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|josdek...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Jos de Kloe josdek...@gmail.com --- This package builds fine. The rpmlint results show an error and 2 warnings. Rpmlint --- Checking: erlang-cowboy-0.6.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm erlang-cowboy.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-cowboy.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-cowboy.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/erlang-cowboy-0.6.1/doc/overview.edoc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. The no-binary thing has been discussed before for erlang packages (see for example this bug #906473) and can be ignored. So only the not-utf8 thing should be fixed. A fix is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8 After that, I'll be happy to do the review. -- 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=2p2ugjzWIHa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #1) This package builds fine. The rpmlint results show an error and 2 warnings. Rpmlint --- Checking: erlang-cowboy-0.6.1-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm erlang-cowboy.x86_64: E: no-binary erlang-cowboy.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib erlang-cowboy.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/erlang-cowboy-0.6.1/doc/overview.edoc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. The no-binary thing has been discussed before for erlang packages (see for example this bug #906473) and can be ignored. So only the not-utf8 thing should be fixed. A fix is documented here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#file-not-utf8 After that, I'll be happy to do the review. Thanks in advance! * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-cowboy.spec * http://peter.fedorapeople.org/erlyvideo/erlang-cowboy-0.8.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Changes: * Updated to ver. 0.8.2 (fully relies on erlang-ranch now) * Changed encoding of doc/overview.edoc to UTF-8 * Added unit-tests (based on erlang-eunit) back Koji scratchbuild for F-19: * http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5122625 -- 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=GuIQz5fbYGa=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 906481] Review Request: erlang-cowboy - Small, fast, modular HTTP server written in Erlang
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906481 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||918587 -- 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=EEmeV8mH7Ra=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
