SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/http-parser.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/http-parser-0.3-1.20100911git.fc13.src.rpm Description: This is a parser for HTTP messages written in C. It parses both requests and responses. The parser is designed to be used in performance HTTP applications. It does not make any syscalls nor allocations, it does not buffer data, it can be interrupted at anytime. Depending on your architecture, it only requires about 40 bytes of data per message stream (in a web server that is per connection).
Taking this.
Koji scratch build for F-13: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2476815 REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable - rpmlint isnt' silent: work ~: rpmlint ~/Desktop/http-parser-* http-parser.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US syscalls -> miscalls, systemically, scallops http-parser.i686: E: no-ldconfig-symlink /usr/lib/libhttp_parser.so.0.3 http-parser.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postin /usr/lib/libhttp_parser.so.0.3 http-parser.i686: E: library-without-ldconfig-postun /usr/lib/libhttp_parser.so.0.3 http-parser-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US htt -> ht, hit, hat http-parser-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings. work ~: In particular, ldconfig-related messages are definitely must be addressed (see my notes below). - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. Please, mention particular git commit ID in the package's version. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. - The package doesn't fully meet the Packaging Guidelines: 1. The mentioned above issue with missing ldconfig invocation in %post and %postun sections 2. The package's versioning scheme must contain git commit id. + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines . + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. (MIT) + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. I can't use md5/sha256 here since tarball contains timestamps, uids, gids and other mutable data. I just diffed them against local copy (fetched as described in spec). Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/BUILD: diff -ru http-parser.orig/ http-parser Sulaco ~/rpmbuild/BUILD: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. - Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. See my notes above. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 0 The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files are in a -devel package. 0 No static libraries. + The library files that end in .so (without suffix) placed in a -devel package. + The devel package requires the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in the package are valid UTF-8. OK, sommarizing things - I've found only two issues - ldconfig and git id in version. Please fix them and I'll finish my review.
(In reply to comment #2) > - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > Please, mention particular git commit ID in the package's version. Well, I'm not required to do that and would prefer not to [1]; both for sake of consistency and usefulness (I find it useless). [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages > - The package doesn't fully meet the Packaging Guidelines: > 1. The mentioned above issue with missing ldconfig invocation in %post and > %postun sections Thanks, fixed. SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/http-parser.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/http-parser-0.3-2.20100911git.fc13.src.rpm
Ok, this package is APPROVED.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: http-parser Short Description: HTTP request/response parser for C Owners: lkundrak Branches: f14 el6
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Imported, built and three times distilled. Thank you!
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: http-parser New Branches: el5 Owners: patches vpaan InitialCC: