Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1199428 - Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
Summary: Review Request: bind99 - BIND 9.9.x libraries for building ISC DHCP
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
high
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Luboš Uhliarik
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1184173
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-03-06 09:17 UTC by Tomáš Hozza
Modified: 2015-03-26 21:52 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-03-26 21:52:41 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
luhliari: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tomáš Hozza 2015-03-06 09:17:40 UTC
Spec URL: https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99.spec
SRPM URL: https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99-9.9.7-1.fc21.src.rpm

Description: BIND (Berkeley Internet Name Domain) is an implementation of the DNS
(Domain Name System) protocols. This package set contains only export
version of BIND libraries, that are used for building ISC DHCP.

Fedora Account System Username: thozza

Comment 1 Jiri Popelka 2015-03-06 09:30:25 UTC
I checked the spec quickly:

%description devel
These headers and libraries are used for building *build* ISC DHCP.

%defattr(-,root,root,-)   is no longer necessary.

Comment 2 Tomáš Hozza 2015-03-06 09:44:42 UTC
(In reply to Jiri Popelka from comment #1)
> I checked the spec quickly:
> 
> %description devel
> These headers and libraries are used for building *build* ISC DHCP.
> 
> %defattr(-,root,root,-)   is no longer necessary.

I used spell check, but "unfortunately" the spelling was right. The rest were leftovers from ancient BIND SPEC ;) I fixed all of those.

Spec URL: https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99.spec
SRPM URL: https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99-9.9.7-2.fc21.src.rpm

Thanks Jiri!

Comment 3 Luboš Uhliarik 2015-03-09 08:42:31 UTC
rpmlint OUTPUT:

bind99.src: E: summary-too-long C The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) DNS (Domain Name System) server libraries
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

Comment 4 Luboš Uhliarik 2015-03-10 10:43:49 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.

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.
[!]: 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)", "Unknown or generated", "Public +domain ISC", "BSD (3
     clause) ISC", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause) ISC", "ISC", "BSD (2
     clause)". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
     in /tmp/1199428-bind99/licensecheck.txt
- multiple licences in source files, but only license in SPEC file
- some of source files don't have any license

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/include/bind99, /usr/lib64/bind99
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/bind99,
     /usr/lib64/bind99
- please solve permissions for directories /usr/include/bind99 and /usr/lib64/bind99

[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
- option --localstatedir in SPEC file in %configure part uses hardcoded directory
name (/var), use macro %{_localstatedir} instead

[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 440320 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in bind99-libs
     , bind99-license , bind99-devel
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
     Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
     See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: bind99-libs-9.9.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          bind99-license-9.9.7-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
          bind99-devel-9.9.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
          bind99-9.9.7-2.fc21.src.rpm
bind99-license.noarch: W: no-documentation
bind99-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
bind99-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
bind99.src: E: summary-too-long C The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) DNS (Domain Name System) server libraries

- please shorten the summary

bind99.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/ <urlopen error timed out>
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

Comment 5 Tomáš Hozza 2015-03-11 13:13:58 UTC
(In reply to Luboš Uhliarik from comment #4)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> ===== MUST items =====
> 
> C/C++:
> [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
> [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> 
> 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.
> [!]: 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)", "Unknown or generated", "Public +domain ISC", "BSD
> (3
>      clause) ISC", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause) ISC", "ISC", "BSD (2
>      clause)". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
>      in /tmp/1199428-bind99/licensecheck.txt
> - multiple licences in source files, but only license in SPEC file
> - some of source files don't have any license

All software from ISC is released under ISC license.
https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/

Based on https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
"The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm."

Using licensecheck on files installed by binary RPMs I see there ISC, Public domain and BSD.

So I changed the license to ISC and BSD and Public Domain. I also added explanation as a comment before License: field.

> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>      Note: No known owner of /usr/include/bind99, /usr/lib64/bind99

Thanks for catching this. I added those to the %files section

> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/bind99,
>      /usr/lib64/bind99
> - please solve permissions for directories /usr/include/bind99 and
> /usr/lib64/bind99

same as the above.

> [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
> - option --localstatedir in SPEC file in %configure part uses hardcoded
> directory
> name (/var), use macro %{_localstatedir} instead

fixed

> [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>      Provides are present.
> [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
>      (~1MB) or number of files.
>      Note: Documentation size is 440320 bytes in 2 files.
> [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
> one
>      supported primary architecture.
> [x]: Package installs properly.
> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
>      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
>      are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
>      beginning of %install.
> [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
> [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
> [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
>      work.
> [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
> [x]: No %config files under /usr.
> [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
> [x]: Package is not relocatable.
> [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
>      in the spec URL.
> [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
>      %{name}.spec.
> [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
> [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
> 
> ===== SHOULD items =====
> 
> Generic:
> [x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
> [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>      Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> bind99-libs
>      , bind99-license , bind99-devel
> [ ]: Package functions as described.
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
> [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
> [ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
> [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
> [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> [x]: Buildroot is not present
> [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
>      $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
> [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
> [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
> [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
> [x]: SourceX is a working URL.
> [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
> 
> ===== EXTRA items =====
> 
> Generic:
> [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
>      Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
>      See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools

BIND is used on different platforms and also on old versions of different Operating Systems. Since this is "just" should point, I'll leave this up to the upstream to decide which m4 macros they use.

> [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
> is
>      arched.
> [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
> 
> 
> Rpmlint
> -------
> Checking: bind99-libs-9.9.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
>           bind99-license-9.9.7-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
>           bind99-devel-9.9.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
>           bind99-9.9.7-2.fc21.src.rpm
> bind99-license.noarch: W: no-documentation
> bind99-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> bind99-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> bind99.src: E: summary-too-long C The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND)
> DNS (Domain Name System) server libraries
> 
> - please shorten the summary

fixed.

> bind99.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/ <urlopen
> error timed out>
> 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

Updated SPEC and SRPM:
https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99.spec
https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99-9.9.7-3.fc21.src.rpm

Comment 6 Luboš Uhliarik 2015-03-12 13:46:29 UTC
Good job Tomas, I can confirm that all marked problems have been fixed, 
so I'm approving this package.

(In reply to Tomas Hozza from comment #5)
> (In reply to Luboš Uhliarik from comment #4)
> > Package Review
> > ==============
> > 
> > Legend:
> > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> > [ ] = Manual review needed
> > 
> > ===== MUST items =====
> > 
> > C/C++:
> > [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
> > [x]: Package contains no static executables.
> > [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> > [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
> > [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
> > [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
> > 
> > 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.
> > [!]: 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)", "Unknown or generated", "Public +domain ISC", "BSD
> > (3
> >      clause) ISC", "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause) ISC", "ISC", "BSD (2
> >      clause)". 55 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck
> >      in /tmp/1199428-bind99/licensecheck.txt
> > - multiple licences in source files, but only license in SPEC file
> > - some of source files don't have any license
> 
> All software from ISC is released under ISC license.
> https://www.isc.org/downloads/software-support-policy/isc-license/
> 
> Based on
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License:_field
> "The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary
> rpm."
> 
> Using licensecheck on files installed by binary RPMs I see there ISC, Public
> domain and BSD.
> 
> So I changed the license to ISC and BSD and Public Domain. I also added
> explanation as a comment before License: field.
> 
> > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> > [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
> >      Note: No known owner of /usr/include/bind99, /usr/lib64/bind99
> 
> Thanks for catching this. I added those to the %files section
> 
> > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> >      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/include/bind99,
> >      /usr/lib64/bind99
> > - please solve permissions for directories /usr/include/bind99 and
> > /usr/lib64/bind99
> 
> same as the above.
> 
> > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
> > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> > [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> > [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> > [!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> > names).
> > - option --localstatedir in SPEC file in %configure part uses hardcoded
> > directory
> > name (/var), use macro %{_localstatedir} instead
> 
> fixed
> 
> > [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> > [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> > [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
> > [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
> >      Provides are present.
> > [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
> > [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
> > [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
> > [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> > [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> >      (~1MB) or number of files.
> >      Note: Documentation size is 440320 bytes in 2 files.
> > [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> > [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
> > one
> >      supported primary architecture.
> > [x]: Package installs properly.
> > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
> >      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> > [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> > [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> >      are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> > [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
> > [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
> >      beginning of %install.
> > [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
> > [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
> > [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> > [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> > [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
> >      work.
> > [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
> > [x]: No %config files under /usr.
> > [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
> > [x]: Package is not relocatable.
> > [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
> >      in the spec URL.
> > [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
> >      %{name}.spec.
> > [x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
> > [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
> > 
> > ===== SHOULD items =====
> > 
> > Generic:
> > [x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
> > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
> >      Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
> > bind99-libs
> >      , bind99-license , bind99-devel
> > [ ]: Package functions as described.
> > [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> > [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> > [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
> > [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
> > [ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
> > [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
> > [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
> > [x]: Buildroot is not present
> > [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
> >      $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
> > [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
> > [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
> > [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
> > [x]: SourceX is a working URL.
> > [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
> > 
> > ===== EXTRA items =====
> > 
> > Generic:
> > [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
> >      Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment.
> >      See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools
> 
> BIND is used on different platforms and also on old versions of different
> Operating Systems. Since this is "just" should point, I'll leave this up to
> the upstream to decide which m4 macros they use.
> 
> > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
> >      Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
> > [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
> > is
> >      arched.
> > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
> > 
> > 
> > Rpmlint
> > -------
> > Checking: bind99-libs-9.9.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
> >           bind99-license-9.9.7-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
> >           bind99-devel-9.9.7-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm
> >           bind99-9.9.7-2.fc21.src.rpm
> > bind99-license.noarch: W: no-documentation
> > bind99-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
> > bind99-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
> > bind99.src: E: summary-too-long C The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND)
> > DNS (Domain Name System) server libraries
> > 
> > - please shorten the summary
> 
> fixed.
> 
> > bind99.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/ <urlopen
> > error timed out>
> > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
> 
> Updated SPEC and SRPM:
> https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99.spec
> https://thozza.fedorapeople.org/bind99/bind99-9.9.7-3.fc21.src.rpm

Comment 7 Tomáš Hozza 2015-03-12 14:21:11 UTC
Thank you Lubos for the review!


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: bind99
Short Description: The Berkeley Internet Name Domain (BIND) DNS (Domain Name System) libraries
Upstream URL: http://www.isc.org/products/BIND/
Owners: thozza jpopelka
Branches: f22
InitialCC:

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-03-12 16:22:10 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2015-03-12 17:10:46 UTC
bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2015-03-13 17:15:47 UTC
bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22, bind-9.10.2-1.fc22, dhcp-4.3.2-2.fc22, dnsperf-2.0.0.0-15.fc22, bind-dyndb-ldap-7.0-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2015-03-26 21:52:41 UTC
bind99-9.9.7-3.fc22, bind-9.10.2-1.fc22, dhcp-4.3.2-2.fc22, dnsperf-2.0.0.0-15.fc22, bind-dyndb-ldap-7.0-4.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.


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