Spec URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/mod_maxminddb.spec SRPM URL: https://labs.linuxnetz.de/bugzilla/mod_maxminddb-1.2.0-1.src.rpm Description: The mod_maxminddb allows to query MaxMind DB files from the Apache web server using the libmaxminddb library. The MaxMind DB files are provided as free GeoLite2 databases as well as commercial GeoIP2 databases. Fedora Account System Username: robert
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: gcc See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 => ignore. ===== 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. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. => Module explicitly for httpd, okay. [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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora- review/2027078-mod_maxminddb/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. [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. [-]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %license. [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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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 unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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: mod_maxminddb-1.2.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm mod_maxminddb-1.2.0-1.el7.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: mod_maxminddb-debuginfo-1.2.0-1.el7.x86_64.rpm mod_maxminddb-debuginfo.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- mod_maxminddb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(mod_maxminddb) geolite2-city geolite2-country httpd-mmn libc.so.6()(64bit) libmaxminddb.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- mod_maxminddb: config(mod_maxminddb) mod_maxminddb mod_maxminddb(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- mod_maxminddb: /usr/lib64/httpd/modules/mod_maxminddb.so Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/maxmind/mod_maxminddb/releases/download/1.2.0/mod_maxminddb-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b6e114bcc2e89afaed63570c209b2868b613239d0fa91bd6e56af76b05a89f13 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b6e114bcc2e89afaed63570c209b2868b613239d0fa91bd6e56af76b05a89f13 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -b 2027078 Buildroot used: epel-7-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
APPROVED.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/42191 failed. May I kindly ask you to update your e-mail address to a suitable one?
Sorry, looks like the issue is https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/9863, which is still not fixed (and is caused by my FAS account in this case).
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mod_maxminddb
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-45c00c934c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-45c00c934c
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-185f0a5771 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-185f0a5771
FEDORA-2022-ae420ea678 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ae420ea678
FEDORA-2022-6cdedef875 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6cdedef875
FEDORA-2022-6cdedef875 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-6cdedef875 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6cdedef875 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ae420ea678 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-ae420ea678 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ae420ea678 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ea4f078649 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ea4f078649 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-185f0a5771 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-185f0a5771 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-45c00c934c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-45c00c934c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-ae420ea678 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-45c00c934c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-ea4f078649 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-6cdedef875 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-185f0a5771 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.