Bug 467856 - Review Request: litmus - WebDAV server protocol compliance test suite
Review Request: litmus - WebDAV server protocol compliance test suite
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 467001
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jon Ciesla
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti...
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2008-10-21 07:29 EDT by Paulo Roma Cavalcanti
Modified: 2008-10-21 10:37 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-10-21 10:37:05 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
limburgher: fedora‑review-


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Paulo Roma Cavalcanti 2008-10-21 07:29:53 EDT
Description of problem:


litmus is a WebDAV server test suite, which aims
at testing whether a server is compliant with the
WebDAV protocol as specified in RFC2518.


http://www.webdav.org/neon/litmus/



Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.
  
Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:
Comment 1 Jon Ciesla 2008-10-21 08:54:09 EDT
Needs links to spec and srpm.
Comment 2 Jon Ciesla 2008-10-21 09:02:23 EDT
Starting full review. . .
Comment 3 Jon Ciesla 2008-10-21 09:03:26 EDT
For those just tuning in, I've asked Paulo in an email exchange to begin practice reviews toward becoming sponsored, so you'll likely see those linked here.
Comment 4 Paulo Roma Cavalcanti 2008-10-21 09:05:43 EDT
(In reply to comment #1)
> Needs links to spec and srpm.

Spec URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/specs/litmus.spec

SRPM URL: http://people.atrpms.net/~pcavalcanti/srpms/litmus-0.11-1.fc8.src.rpm


Description:

litmus is a WebDAV server test suite, which aims
at testing whether a server is compliant with the
WebDAV protocol as specified in RFC2518.

Additional Info:

http://www.webdav.org/neon/litmus/
Comment 5 Jon Ciesla 2008-10-21 10:08:45 EDT
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.

Clean.

- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .

OK.

- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines .

OK.

- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .

FIX: Should honor CFLAGS.

- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .

OK.

- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.

OK.

- MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.

OK.

- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

OK.

- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/).

OK.

- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.

OK.

- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.

Builds on i386, F-9.

- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86 , FE-ExcludeArch-x64 , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc , FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64

NA.

- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

OK.

- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.

OK.

- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig. An example of the correct syntax for this is:

%post -p /sbin/ldconfig

%postun -p /sbin/ldconfig


NA.

- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.

NA.

- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples.

OK.

- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.

OK.

- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.

OK.

- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).

OK.

- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines .

OK.

- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .

OK.

- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)

NA.

- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.

OK.

- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

NA.

- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

NA.

- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).

NA.

- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.

NA.

- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

NA.

- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec.

NA.

- MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of the Packaging Guidelines . If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.

NA.

- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time.

OK.

- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.

OK.

- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

OK.

Summary:  Fix compiler flags issue. 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Compiler_flags

Also, 0.12 is out, I'd strongly consider updating.
Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2008-10-21 10:28:55 EDT
Isn't this a dup of 467001?
Comment 7 Jon Ciesla 2008-10-21 10:37:05 EDT
Sure is, good catch.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 467001 ***

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