Bug 2027078 - Review Request: mod_maxminddb - Module for the Apache web server to query MaxMind DB files
Summary: Review Request: mod_maxminddb - Module for the Apache web server to query Max...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Raphael Groner
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2021-11-28 03:47 UTC by Robert Scheck
Modified: 2022-02-23 17:03 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-02-23 16:14:58 UTC
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
projects.rg: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Robert Scheck 2021-11-28 03:47:00 UTC
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

Comment 1 Raphael Groner 2022-02-13 18:29:28 UTC
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

Comment 2 Raphael Groner 2022-02-13 18:30:01 UTC
APPROVED.

Comment 3 Robert Scheck 2022-02-14 12:38:15 UTC
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?

Comment 4 Robert Scheck 2022-02-15 13:28:45 UTC
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).

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2022-02-15 14:16:08 UTC
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mod_maxminddb

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2022-02-15 23:52:39 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-45c00c934c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-45c00c934c

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2022-02-15 23:52:40 UTC
FEDORA-EPEL-2022-185f0a5771 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-185f0a5771

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2022-02-15 23:52:41 UTC
FEDORA-2022-ae420ea678 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-ae420ea678

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2022-02-15 23:52:42 UTC
FEDORA-2022-6cdedef875 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-6cdedef875

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2022-02-16 01:51:24 UTC
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.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2022-02-16 02:05:00 UTC
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.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2022-02-16 02:08:18 UTC
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.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2022-02-16 02:28:08 UTC
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.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2022-02-16 02:29:17 UTC
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.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2022-02-23 16:14:58 UTC
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.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2022-02-23 16:35:42 UTC
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.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2022-02-23 16:39:32 UTC
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.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2022-02-23 16:57:14 UTC
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.

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2022-02-23 17:03:40 UTC
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.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.