Spec URL: http://rpms.damian.net/SPECS/mod_qos.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.damian.net/SRPMS/mod_qos-10.13-3.fc17.src.rpm Description: The mod_qos module may be used to determine which requests should be served and which shouldn't in order to avoid resource over-subscription. The module collects different attributes such as the request URL, HTTP request and response headers, the IP source address, the HTTP response code, history data (based on user session and source IP address), the number of concurrent requests to the server (total or requests having similar attributes), the number of concurrent TCP connections (total or from a single source IP), and so forth. Counteractive measures to enforce the defined rules are: request blocking, dynamic timeout adjustment, request delay, response throttling, and dropping of TCP connections. Fedora Account System Username: cdamian
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: 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. 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 %doc. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/admiller/893165-mod_qos/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [ ]: Package is not relocatable. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 389120 bytes in 20 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [ ]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mod_qos-10.13-3.fc18.src.rpm mod_qos-debuginfo-10.13-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm mod_qos-10.13-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm mod_qos.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qos -> nos, cos, dos mod_qos.src:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 17) mod_qos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) qos -> nos, cos, dos mod_qos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qos -> nos, cos, dos mod_qos.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qos -> nos, cos, dos 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mod_qos mod_qos-debuginfo mod_qos.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qos -> nos, cos, dos mod_qos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) qos -> nos, cos, dos mod_qos-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US qos -> nos, cos, dos 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mod_qos-debuginfo-10.13-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mod_qos-10.13-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(mod_qos) = 10.13-3.fc18 httpd-mmn = 20120211-x86-64 libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- mod_qos-debuginfo-10.13-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm: mod_qos-debuginfo = 10.13-3.fc18 mod_qos-debuginfo(x86-64) = 10.13-3.fc18 mod_qos-10.13-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm: config(mod_qos) = 10.13-3.fc18 mod_qos = 10.13-3.fc18 mod_qos(x86-64) = 10.13-3.fc18 mod_qos.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- mod_qos-10.13-3.fc18.x86_64.rpm: /usr/lib64/httpd/modules/mod_qos.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/mod-qos/mod_qos-10.13.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 507d4bf7db8dc03527dc156c3186081d245056aa839f86f744b7b21d2aa5a33c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 507d4bf7db8dc03527dc156c3186081d245056aa839f86f744b7b21d2aa5a33c Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 893165 NOTES: 1) GPLv2 should be GPLv2+ 2) This message always appears when run on machines not containing httpd-devel: "cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn: No such file or directory" which is only a minor issue but I assume that's not desired and instead the echo message should be present. 3) rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT present but not required Over all, this looks good. It's nice and clean, just need those couple fixes.
(In reply to comment #1) > NOTES: > 1) GPLv2 should be GPLv2+ > 2) This message always appears when run on machines not containing > httpd-devel: "cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn: No such file or directory" which > is only a minor issue but I assume that's not desired and instead the echo > message should be present. > 3) rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT present but not required > > Over all, this looks good. It's nice and clean, just need those couple fixes. I uploaded a new version fixing these issues. I usually keep 3) in, because it doesn't hurt and makes it compatible with EPEL-5, but I am not sure I will build this for that release anyway. Spec URL: http://rpms.damian.net/SPECS/mod_qos.spec SRPM URL: http://rpms.damian.net/SRPMS/mod_qos-10.13-4.fc18.src.rpm
Looks good, rpmlint throws this but I don't consider it a blocker. $ rpmlint srpm/mod_qos.spec srpm/mod_qos.spec:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 17) 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. PASSED
(In reply to comment #3) > Looks good, rpmlint throws this but I don't consider it a blocker. > > $ rpmlint srpm/mod_qos.spec > srpm/mod_qos.spec:17: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: > line 17) > 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > PASSED Cheers I am going to fix the above on import. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mod_qos Short Description: Quality of service module for Apache Owners: cdamian Branches: f18 el6 InitialCC:
the bug does not have the review state set to +
Apologies for not setting to +, I realized that I've changed my BZ email and it no longer matches my FAS email which means I don't have permissions to set to +. I have a request into the Fedora Infrastructure team to fix this.
In the meantime, I have set the fedora-review to + for you
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Awesome, greatly appreciated!
The machine I tested on already had mod_ssl enabled so this wasn't caught but a colleague of mine noticed that the rpm auto-fu doesn't pull in mod_ssl as a requires. This should have been fixed before I passed the review, was my oversight. However, everything else looks good. Apologies: %prep %setup -q -n %{name}-%{version} %build -%{_httpd_apxs} -Wc,"%{optflags}" -c apache2/mod_qos.c +%{_httpd_apxs} -Wc,"%{optflags}" -c apache2/mod_qos.c -lcrypto -lpcre
(In reply to comment #10) > The machine I tested on already had mod_ssl enabled so this wasn't caught > but a colleague of mine noticed that the rpm auto-fu doesn't pull in mod_ssl > as a requires. > > This should have been fixed before I passed the review, was my oversight. > However, everything else looks good. Thanks, this will also go into the first release I push.
mod_qos-10.13-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_qos-10.13-4.fc18
mod_qos-10.13-4.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mod_qos-10.13-4.el6
mod_qos-10.13-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository.
mod_qos-10.13-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
mod_qos-10.13-4.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: mod_qos New Branches: el5 epel7 Owners: athmane