[Bug 1673] Review Request: mod_h264_streaming - H264 streaming module for the Apache HTTP Server

Fri Jul 8 20:50:14 CEST 2011

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1673

--- Comment #4 from Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com>  2011-07-08 20:50:13 ---
Sure.

[ yes ] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.

$ rpmlint mod_h264_streaming-*
mod_h264_streaming.i686: W: invalid-license CC-BY-NC-SA
mod_h264_streaming.i686: W: no-documentation
mod_h264_streaming.src: W: invalid-license CC-BY-NC-SA
cat: /usr/include/httpd/.mmn: No such file or directory
mod_h264_streaming-debuginfo.i686: W: invalid-license CC-BY-NC-SA
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

The error on /usr/include/httpd/.mmn is odd, but that's how other Apache
modules do it, so it is fine.

[ yes ] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
[ yes ] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[ yes ] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[ yes ] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.

CC-BY-NC-SA is appropriate for RPM Fusion nonfree.

[ yes ] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[ n/a ] 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.
[ yes ] The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
[ yes ] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
[ yes ] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.

Posted SRPM: 123cacef68e9ff56fe908200bd0feea5 
apache_mod_h264_streaming-2.2.7.tar.gz
Upstream tarball: 123cacef68e9ff56fe908200bd0feea5 
apache_mod_h264_streaming-2.2.7.tar.gz

[ yes ] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
[ n/a ] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[ yes ] 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 ] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[ n/a ] 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.
[ yes ] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[ n/a ] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review
[ yes ] 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.
[ yes ] 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)
[ yes ] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[ yes ] Each package must consistently use macros.
[ yes ] The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[ n/a ] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[ n/a ] 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 ] Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
[ n/a ] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
[ n/a ] 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 ] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: 
[ yes ] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[ n/a ] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file
[ yes ] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. 
[ yes ] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but
is not required to do.

[ no ] If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. 
[ no ] The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[ yes ] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

Mocked on F14, i866.

[ ?? ] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.

Did not test on other versions or arches, I'll leave that to you :)

[ yes ] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

Apache loads it on my F14 box, at least.

[ n/a ] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[ n/a ] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
[ n/a ] 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.
[ yes ] 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 ] your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

I have two recommendations (they don't block my approval):

Please use dist conditionals around your RHEL 4 patch, so that when RHEL 4 is
EOL'd it will be extra clear that the maintainer can remove the patch.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:DistTag#Conditionals

Please see if your patch to lower the httpd version requirement can be sent
upstream.

In summary: this looks good to me, approved.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.