Spec URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/mod_remoteip.spec SRPM URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mod_remoteip-0.1.20100929-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: This module is used to treat the remote host which initiated the request as the originating remote host as identified by httpd for the purposes of authorization and logging, even where that remote host is behind a load balancer, front end server, or proxy server. The module replaces the apparent remote (client) IP/hostname for the request with the IP address reported in the request header configured with the RemoteIPHeader directive. Once replaced as instructed, this apparent IP address is then used for mod_authz_host features <Require host> and <Require ip>, is reported by mod_status, and is recorded by mod_log_config a and h directives. It also determines the machine probed for an inetd identity by mod_ident based on the IdentityCheck configuration.
As a note, this is only needed for branches with Apache 2.2.x as it's included with Apache 2.3 as a core module.
Okay, here we go: [ DONE ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) remoteip -> remoteness, remote, remonetize mod_remoteip.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C mod_remoteip mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httpd -> HTTP mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostname -> host name, host-name, hostage mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US authz -> auth, auth z, autarch mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ip -> pi, up, op mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inetd -> tined, inept, inert mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ident -> dent, indent, rident mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) remoteip -> remoteness, remote, remonetize mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C mod_remoteip mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostname -> host name, host-name, hostage mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US authz -> auth, auth z, autarch mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ip -> pi, up, op mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inetd -> tined, inept, inert mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ident -> dent, indent, rident mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/httpd/modules/mod_remoteip.so mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings. $ [ OK ] 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. [ ?? ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [ OK ] 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. [ N/A ] 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. [ 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. -> e5266d44cf6ffc84bd4c855f71b2f4fb mod_remoteip.c -> e5266d44cf6ffc84bd4c855f71b2f4fb mod_remoteip.c.1 [ OK ] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [ N/A ] 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 MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [ OK ] 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. [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [ N/A ] MUST: 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. [ OK ] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [ N/A ] 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. [ OK ] 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. [ OK ] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) [ 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 consistently use macros. -> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} is used [ OK ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [ N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files must 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). [ N/A ] 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. [ N/A ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [ N/A ] 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. [ N/A ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} %{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [ N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [ N/A ] 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. 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. [ OK ] 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: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [ N/A ] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ OK ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ OK ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ OK ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ SKIP ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [ N/A ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [ N/A ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [ N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [ N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [ N/A ] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. Further things (mixed, must and should): - "unstripped-binary-or-object" can (and must) be solved by putting the forgotten/missing line "%setup -q -T -c" after line "%prep". - Summary "Apache Module mod_remoteip" doesn't say anything. Example for a proper summary is "Apache module to replace client IP/hostname with that given by a proxy", however something better than now is a must. - May you explain where you get the version number from? I was not able to find a version number anywhere. If unsure use "Version: 0" rather current "Version: 0.1.20100929". A correct version/release tag is a must. - If you want to mention a date from a checkout or similar, please note that it needs to be specified in release tag and by mentioning the type of SCM. - Recommented to replace "%defattr (-,root,root)" by "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" - Are you sure that /etc/httpd/conf.d/mod_remoteip.conf is really correct and not /etc/httpd/conf.d/remoteip.conf, like most other Apache modules are using? IMHO there is no need for mod_* in the configuration file name. - Why is the configuration file mentioned previously inline? If somebody is configuring that module using your default configuration file and if you are performing a rebuild of the package or a dist-upgrade takes place, rpm will generate a .rpm(new|old|save) file - even if your default file did not change but the timestamp of your packaged file is newer, because it is created during build. I highly recommend here to put the configuration file default into a separate source file, e.g. "Source1: remoteip.conf". - Replace "install %{SOURCE0} ." by "install -m 644 %{SOURCE0} ." or even by a "cp -pf %{SOURCE0} ." to avoid unnecessary "spurious-executable-perm" warning in -debuginfo subpackage that will show up once first issue in this list is solved. - Is "Requires: httpd >= 2.2, httpd < 2.3" really needed? If yes, I would like to get explained why. From my point of view, the ABI compatibility is guaranteed via httpd-mmn requirement and 2.3 should have another value for that field, shouldn't it? Keeping the restriction for buildrequires is nevertheless okay from my point of view. Okay...that's it for now.
Ping? Still interested?
I've been meaning to look into packaging this module for EPEL 6. Jonathan, still interested?
I would be very much interested in this package. We have a lot of sites that rely on IP-based access controls and I'm looking to setup a load balancer. We won't be ready for Apache 2.4 for a long time yet, so this module would be a tremendous help. I'm also available to test it.
Jonathan, are you still interested in getting this package into Fedora?
Yes. I will work on updates to the spec tomorrow and submit a new revision to address the concerns.
Spec URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/mod_remoteip.spec SRPM URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mod_remoteip-0.1.20100929-1.fc13.src.rpm $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/result/*.rpm mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) remoteip -> remote mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) httpd -> HTTP mod_remoteip.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C mod_remoteip mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US httpd -> HTTP mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US balancer -> balance, balances, balanced mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostname -> host name, host-name, hostage mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US authz -> author mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ip -> pi, up, op mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inetd -> dinette mod_remoteip.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ident -> dent, indent, i dent mod_remoteip.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mod_remoteip-0.1.tar.gz mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Backport -> Back port, Back-port, Backpacker mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) remoteip -> remote mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C mod_remoteip mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US balancer -> balance, balances, balanced mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hostname -> host name, host-name, hostage mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US authz -> author mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ip -> pi, up, op mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US config -> con fig, con-fig, configure mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US inetd -> dinette mod_remoteip.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ident -> dent, indent, i dent mod_remoteip-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) remoteip -> remote mod_remoteip-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US remoteip -> remote 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 25 warnings. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4726162
Got bit by copy and paste: Spec URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/mod_remoteip.spec SRPM URL: http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mod_remoteip-0.1-2.30078fc0a9git.fc17.src.rpm
Robert, Are you still interested in doing this review? As we are getting httpd 2.4 in f18+ this is not as critical for Fedora but I'll doing builds for f16, f17, el5 and el6 as they will remain httpd 2.2. Thanks for your review.
Fifteen packages in Fedora 17 have a httpd configuration file that begins with "mod_" so there is certainly precedent for keeping the "mod_" prefix in the name.
Ken, I disagree. The package is intended for EPEL only as per description. I will try to do the package review these days. Sorry for the delay.
(In reply to comment #12) > Ken, I disagree. The package is intended for EPEL only as per description. I > will try to do the package review these days. Sorry for the delay. Respectfully I disagree as well. As Comment 10 indicates, F17 still ships httpd 2.2. Additionally the EL+EPEL repos still contain eight (el5) and seven (el6) unique packages that fit the "mod_" convention. There's also something to be said for keeping in line with upstream, since they ship a "mod_remoteip.conf" file.
I finally don't get your issue. I am fine with /etc/httpd/conf.d/remoteip.conf as long as it's on a branch having Apache < 2.3. That is at least how IMHO most of the separate Apache modules are packaged or were packaged for years now. And if the packager wants /etc/httpd/conf.d/mod_remoteip.conf while Apache < 2.3, it is also fine to me. I can not detect anything conflicting in the packaging draft: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ApacheHTTPModules
(In reply to comment #14) > I finally don't get your issue. I am fine with > /etc/httpd/conf.d/remoteip.conf > as long as it's on a branch having Apache < 2.3. That is at least how IMHO > most > of the separate Apache modules are packaged or were packaged for years now. > And > if the packager wants /etc/httpd/conf.d/mod_remoteip.conf while Apache < 2.3, > it is also fine to me. I can not detect anything conflicting in the > packaging draft: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ApacheHTTPModules I'm fine with either mod_remoteip.conf or remoteip.conf. My preference is mod_remoteip.conf but it's a simple change to make it remoteip.conf in %install. I'm also fine with adding a Conflicts: httpd >= 2.3 if that will enforce for you I will not be building for anything greater then httpd 2.2.
After building and installing http://jsteffan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/mod_remoteip-0.1-2.30078fc0a9git.fc17.src.rpm on CentOS 6.3 I'm getting the following segfault: # gdb --batch --eval-command='bt full' --exec=/usr/sbin/httpd --core=/var/run/httpd/core.httpd.1715 [New Thread 1715] Missing separate debuginfo for Try: yum --disablerepo='*' --enablerepo='*-debug*' install /usr/lib/debug/.build-id/8e/312e8752e924c26341440ec3a032bc0e20cba3 [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] Core was generated by `/usr/sbin/httpd'. Program terminated with signal 11, Segmentation fault. #0 0x00007feb7a9b1a4b in apr_ipsubnet_test (ipsub=0x7feb7d0fc968, sa=0x7feb7d56dab8) at network_io/unix/sockaddr.c:1007 1007 else if (IN6_IS_ADDR_V4MAPPED((struct in6_addr *)sa->ipaddr_ptr)) { #0 0x00007feb7a9b1a4b in apr_ipsubnet_test (ipsub=0x7feb7d0fc968, sa=0x7feb7d56dab8) at network_io/unix/sockaddr.c:1007 No locals. #1 0x00007feb78f62131 in find_allowdeny (r=0x7feb7d56bf68, a=0x7feb7d0fc8a8, method=<value optimized out>) at /usr/src/debug/httpd-2.2.15/modules/aaa/mod_authz_host.c:239 ap = <value optimized out> mmask = 1 i = <value optimized out> gothost = <value optimized out> remotehost = <value optimized out> #2 0x00007feb78f6221b in check_dir_access (r=0x7feb7d56bf68) at /usr/src/debug/httpd-2.2.15/modules/aaa/mod_authz_host.c:295 method = 0 ret = 403 a = 0x7feb7d0fc798 #3 0x00007feb7beceab0 in ?? () No symbol table info available. #4 0x0000000000000000 in ?? () No symbol table info available. What can be done to prevent this SegFault?
By the way, I've disabled IPv6 on the affected machine: # grep IPV6 /etc/sysconfig/network NETWORKING_IPV6=no # cat /etc/modprobe.d/local.conf install net-pf-10 /bin/true blacklist net-pf-10 install ipv6 /bin/true blacklist ipv6
This neither affects Fedora anymore nor RHEL 7 since they both ship with newer httpd which includes mod_remoteip. Close this issue?
We have switched to RHEL 7 which includes httpd 2.4 and mod_remoteip, so I vote for closing this issue.