Bug 445027
Summary: | Review Request: dnrd - A caching, forwarding DNS proxy server | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rakesh Pandit <rpandit> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Kevin Fenzi <kevin> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | low | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, j, notting |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-08-12 03:01:04 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
Rakesh Pandit
2008-05-02 19:19:40 UTC
This fails to build for me in mock: + dos2unix COPYING /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.50471: line 39: dos2unix: command not found mock (and hence the Fedora buildsystem) will build packages in a minimal environment, consisting of a few packages (listed in the Exceptions section of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRequires) plus any packages listed in your BuildRequires:. This means that if you want to call something like dos2unix, you need to specify a dependency on it manually: BuildRequires: dos2unix or you can use sed -i 's/\r//' COPYING instead which has no dependencies. The package builds fine if I make either of those two changes. It's strongly preferred that if your going to use macro forms like %{__install} (on the make install line) that you use them everywhere. Alternately, just using: make install INSTALL="install -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT works fine and is less typing, although to be honest I don't actually see any dfference when I change that to: make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT Perhaps I'm missing something. I'm confused about how dnrd itself is to be used. If it's a system daemon, shouldn't it have initscripts and such? The executable will expect to see configuration files in /etc/dnrd, so I'd expect that this package would provide that directory. Is it possible to provide any kind of initial configuration file that would be useful? Perhaps a caching-only server if one can be setup without requiring local customization. >or you can use > sed -i 's/\r//' COPYING >instead which has no dependencies. Done. > make install INSTALL="install -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT >works fine and is less typing, although to be honest I don't actually see any >dfference when I change that to: > make install DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT >Perhaps I'm missing something. Done (make install INSTALL="install -p" DESTDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT) As http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Timestamps using 'install -p' saves files' timestamps. Dnrd has to be used with command line arguments, it does not have any configuration files as such now. It just uses master and blacklist files for master DNS and blocking respectively. There are only few values like cache marks, or DNRD chroot directory which are configurable. No configuration file is supported right now. New SPEC: http://rakesh.gnulinuxcentar.org/dnrd.spec New SRPM: http://rakesh.gnulinuxcentar.org/dnrd-2.20.3-1.fc8.src.rpm > expect package would provide that directory (/etc/dnrd/) Done -- Rakesh Pandit dnrd does not resolve dns lookups. It only forwards the requests to an upstream server. So, we cannot have a default config for dnrd. User needs to set up upstream DNS server from ISP. Yes it should have init.d script as it is a daemon I will get one init.d script in package ASAP -- Rakesh Pandit >Yes it should have init.d script as it is a daemon >I will get one init.d script in package ASAP Updated with init.d script and an example conf sample file New SRPM: http://rakesh.gnulinuxcentar.org/dnrd-2.20.3-1.fc8.src.rpm New SPEC http://rakesh.gnulinuxcentar.org/dnrd.spec Corrected release number: SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/dnrd.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/dnrd-2.20.3-2.fc8.src.rpm I would be happy to review this package. Look for a full review in a bit. OK - Package meets naming and packaging guidelines OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 41c9b070aae8ed403fc8c2aac7ab157c dnrd-2.20.3.tar.gz 41c9b070aae8ed403fc8c2aac7ab157c dnrd-2.20.3.tar.gz.orig OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. OK - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Package has correct buildroot OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Doc subpackage needed/used. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - Package has rm -rf RPM_BUILD_ROOT at top of %install OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. See below - Package has no duplicate files in %files. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - No rpmlint output. OK - final provides and requires are sane: SHOULD Items: OK - Should build in mock. OK - Should build on all supported archs OK - Should have sane scriptlets. OK - Should have dist tag OK - Should package latest version Issues: 1. There looks to be a slight license issue. The qid.h file appears to be under just the GPLv2, while everything else is either GPLv2+ or "Public domain". So, the entire package looks like it will be under GPLv2. You might however talk to upstream about this and see thats what the intend. They might have just missed a file in a relicense. 2. You have a file listed twice in %files: warning: File listed twice: /etc/dnrd/dnrd.conf You probibly want to make the %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} just use a %dir to only include the directory there. 1. Fixed I discussed with upstream today in mailing list and confirmed that GPLv2 is fine for this release. They have corrected it, so that next release has no issues. 2. Fixed SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/dnrd.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/dnrd-2.20.3-3.fc8.src.rpm Humm... the spec still shows 'GPLv2+'. That should be 'GPLv2'. ;) Aaah! :( Fixed. SPEC: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/spec/dnrd.spec SRPM: http://rakesh.fedorapeople.org/srpm/dnrd-2.20.3-4.fc9.src.rpm That solves all the issues I see here, so this package is APPROVED. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: dnrd Short Description: A caching, forwarding DNS proxy server Owners: rakesh Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: rakesh Cvsextras Commits: yes cvs done. dnrd-2.20.3-4.fc8 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 8 dnrd-2.20.3-4.fc9 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 9 dnrd-2.20.3-4.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update dnrd'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F8/FEDORA-2008-6534 dnrd-2.20.3-4.fc8 has been pushed to the Fedora 8 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. dnrd-2.20.3-4.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |