Bug 1324863
Summary: | Review Request: varnish-modules - A collection of modules extending varnish VCL | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Ingvar Hagelund <ingvar> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Othman Madjoudj <athmanem> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | athmanem, dridi.boukelmoune, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | athmanem:
fedora-review+
|
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2017-06-09 19:22:09 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Ingvar Hagelund
2016-04-07 13:11:27 UTC
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Result: ======= APPROVED Issues: (Not blocker) ======= 1) You should package the latest version: 0.9.1 2) Patch varnish-modules-0.9.0-add_missing_TCP_CONGESTION_on_el5.patch should be upstreamed if possible 3) The license seems OK, since only build system is GPL. GPL (v2 or later) ----------------- varnish-modules-0.9.0/ltmain.sh MIT/X11 (BSD like) ------------------ varnish-modules-0.9.0/install-sh ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. .so are only used by varnish [-]: 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. 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: needed for EPEL5 compatibility [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. [-]: 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. [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. [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]: 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: [-]: Buildroot is not present Note: Needed for EPEL5 compatibility [-]: 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 [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: varnish-modules-0.9.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm varnish-modules-debuginfo-0.9.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm varnish-modules-0.9.0-1.fc24.src.rpm varnish-modules.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vsthrottle -> vs throttle, vs-throttle, throttle varnish-modules.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US saintmode -> saint mode, saint-mode, sainthood varnish-modules.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softpurge -> soft purge, soft-purge, Sourceforge varnish-modules.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcp -> pct, tsp, tip varnish-modules.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xkey -> key, x key, Key varnish-modules.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) vmods -> mods, v mods, moods varnish-modules.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vmods -> mods, v mods, moods varnish-modules.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vsthrottle -> vs throttle, vs-throttle, throttle varnish-modules.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US saintmode -> saint mode, saint-mode, sainthood varnish-modules.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softpurge -> soft purge, soft-purge, Sourceforge varnish-modules.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcp -> pct, tsp, tip varnish-modules.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xkey -> key, x key, Key 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: varnish-modules-debuginfo-0.9.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory varnish-modules.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US vsthrottle -> vs throttle, vs-throttle, throttle varnish-modules.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US saintmode -> saint mode, saint-mode, sainthood varnish-modules.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US softpurge -> soft purge, soft-purge, Sourceforge varnish-modules.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcp -> pct, tsp, tip varnish-modules.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xkey -> key, x key, Key 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- varnish-modules-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): varnish-modules (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) varnish Provides -------- varnish-modules-debuginfo: varnish-modules-debuginfo varnish-modules-debuginfo(x86-64) varnish-modules: libvmod_cookie.so()(64bit) libvmod_header.so()(64bit) libvmod_saintmode.so()(64bit) libvmod_softpurge.so()(64bit) libvmod_tcp.so()(64bit) libvmod_var.so()(64bit) libvmod_vsthrottle.so()(64bit) libvmod_xkey.so()(64bit) varnish-modules varnish-modules(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- varnish-modules: /usr/lib64/varnish/vmods/libvmod_cookie.so varnish-modules: /usr/lib64/varnish/vmods/libvmod_header.so varnish-modules: /usr/lib64/varnish/vmods/libvmod_saintmode.so varnish-modules: /usr/lib64/varnish/vmods/libvmod_softpurge.so varnish-modules: /usr/lib64/varnish/vmods/libvmod_tcp.so varnish-modules: /usr/lib64/varnish/vmods/libvmod_var.so varnish-modules: /usr/lib64/varnish/vmods/libvmod_vsthrottle.so varnish-modules: /usr/lib64/varnish/vmods/libvmod_xkey.so Source checksums ---------------- http://files.varnish-software.com/vmod/varnish-modules-0.9.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c531708d05117dff36b885bad162f4faad231229369e2f5326fd4c07f78554ed CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c531708d05117dff36b885bad162f4faad231229369e2f5326fd4c07f78554ed Updated specfile: https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/varnish/varnish-modules.spec Updated src.rpm: https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/varnish/varnish-modules-0.9.1-1.fc24.src.rpm * Fri Aug 05 2016 Ingvar Hagelund <ingvar> 0.9.1-1 - New upstream release - Build man pages, buildrequires python-docutils - Added a patch for tests/cookie/08-overflow.vtc, upping workspace_client, the default is too small on 32bit - Removed extra cflags for el5, fixed with patch from upstream - Force readable docs and debug files, they tend to end up with mode 600 Tested build on, aarch64, armv7l, i386, and x86_64 Copr builds for el5, el6, el7: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/ingvar/varnish41/build/440152/ I think this update addresses all issues reported in Athmane's review. The latest version also have fixed the license issue. As a bonus, it will build nicely on el5 as well, given it has rst2man, as for instance found in the rpmforge package of python-docutils-0.6-1. Ingvar May I suggest per-module virtual provides? So that a user could `dnf install vmod-cookie` for instance. With this package and my own submission in bug 1379174 I think we should also aim for vmod-specific packaging guidelines. I had already briefly touched on this topic, regarding Varnish's own virtual provides in bug 1303543. Dridi (In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #5) > May I suggest per-module virtual provides? Please :-) > So that a user could `dnf install vmod-cookie` for instance. With this > package and my own submission in bug 1379174 I think we should also aim for > vmod-specific packaging guidelines. I had already briefly touched on this > topic, regarding Varnish's own virtual provides in bug 1303543. Sure! Could you provide an updated spec? Ingvar Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/varnish-modules Something like this? https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/varnish/varnish-modules.spec https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/varnish/varnish-modules-0.9.2-0.1.20160924gitdaa4f1d.fc24.src.rpm (In reply to Ingvar Hagelund from comment #8) > Something like this? > > https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/varnish/varnish-modules.spec > https://ingvar.fedorapeople.org/varnish/varnish-modules-0.9.2-0.1. > 20160924gitdaa4f1d.fc24.src.rpm Changes: - Upstream git checkout with support for varnish-5.0 - Removed patches that are included upstream - Virtual provides per module - el5 build fix I'm certainly against the varnish ABI dependency, I will submit a patch as you requested. In the mean time please remove: Requires: varnishabi-5.0 For the virtual provides, I would add the %{release}-%{version} but it's not a must in the packaging guidelines IIRC. Provides: vmod-cookie = %{release}-%{version} Cheers (In reply to Dridi Boukelmoune from comment #10) > I'm certainly against the varnish ABI dependency, I will submit a patch as > you requested. In the mean time please remove: > > Requires: varnishabi-5.0 Well, that certainly is interesting. I've been trying to get scn (upstream) to explain what how I can ensure compatibilty among versions of varnish and vmods, but I've never got a 100% clear answer. (Perhaps there is none :-) This last version of varnish-modules is built against varnish-5.0, and probably won't work with earlier versions. We could add a dependency fo varnish >= 5.0, but then, that may or may not add problems when/if varnish-5.1 or 6.0 is released. We could add a hard dependency on the exact varnish version, but that would require a recompile on minor releases, that may not be necessary. Using the varnish-abi version string seems a fairly reasonable choice to avoid these kinds of problems. So if that is wrong, I'm very interested in why. > For the virtual provides, I would add the %{release}-%{version} but it's not > a must in the packaging guidelines IIRC. > > Provides: vmod-cookie = %{release}-%{version} Yep, that's a good idea :-) br Ingvar > I've never got a 100% clear answer. (Perhaps there is none :-) I can share the dirty secrets of varnish ABI rules, but let's do that in a dedicated ticket against the varnish package when I have something ready to submit to you. Incidentally, I think many things can be simplified in the current spec, and I'm not fond of pulling pkg-varnish-cache in. Upstream doesn't follow our packaging guidelines and has recently reduced RPM packaging down to varnish and varnish-devel (which I don't disagree with). That incidentally dropped the -docs package that our guidelines recommend. I think Fedora packaging of Varnish should be independent of upstream's own packaging. > This last version of varnish-modules is built against varnish-5.0 That's a good point, I was the one who fixed varnish-modules so that vmod-xkey and vmod-softpurge would build against 5.0. I'm still against the aforementioned requires. Please be patient until I have time to submit something ;-) varnish-modules-0.12.1-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-6fb1da0cfa varnish-modules-0.12.1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1ea38b76e1 varnish-modules-0.12.1-1.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-80017eaec4 varnish-modules-0.12.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-80017eaec4 varnish-modules-0.12.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-1ea38b76e1 varnish-modules-0.12.1-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-6fb1da0cfa varnish-modules-0.12.1-2.fc26 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 26. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a8c54162ea varnish-modules-0.12.1-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9f99d33da0 varnish-modules-0.12.1-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-304f58adbe varnish-modules-0.12.1-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-9f99d33da0 varnish-modules-0.12.1-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-304f58adbe varnish-modules-0.12.1-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-a8c54162ea varnish-modules-0.12.1-2.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. varnish-modules-0.12.1-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. varnish-modules-0.12.1-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |