Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #1 from Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; 2011-08-29 17:33:36 EDT --- FE-NEEDSPONSOR -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #2 from Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; 2011-08-29 18:18:05 EDT --- [rottmrei@localhost SRPMS]$ rpmlint -i apf-1.13-1.fc15.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [rottmrei@localhost noarch]$ rpmlint -i apf-1.13-1.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [rottmrei@localhost SRPMS]$ rpmlint -i apf-doc-1.13-1.fc15.src.rpm apf-doc.src:32: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate. apf-doc.src:32: W: macro-in-comment %{_localstatedir} There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate. apf-doc.src:32: W: macro-in-comment %{version} There is a unescaped macro after a shell style comment in the specfile. Macros are expanded everywhere, so check if it can cause a problem in this case and escape the macro with another leading % if appropriate. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. [rottmrei@localhost noarch]$ rpmlint -i apf-doc-1.13-1.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [rottmrei@localhost SRPMS]$ mock apf-1.13-1.fc15.src.rpm INFO: mock.py version 1.1.12 starting... State Changed: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled State Changed: start INFO: Start(apf-1.13-1.fc15.src.rpm) Config(fedora-15-x86_64) State Changed: lock buildroot State Changed: clean INFO: chroot (/var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64) unlocked and deleted State Changed: unlock buildroot State Changed: init State Changed: lock buildroot Mock Version: 1.1.12 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.12 INFO: enabled root cache State Changed: unpacking root cache INFO: enabled yum cache State Changed: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache State Changed: running yum State Changed: unlock buildroot State Changed: setup State Changed: build INFO: Done(apf-1.13-1.fc15.src.rpm) Config(default) 0 minutes 49 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result State Changed: end [rottmrei@localhost SRPMS]$ mock apf-doc-1.13-1.fc15.src.rpm INFO: mock.py version 1.1.12 starting... State Changed: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled State Changed: start INFO: Start(apf-doc-1.13-1.fc15.src.rpm) Config(fedora-15-x86_64) State Changed: lock buildroot State Changed: clean INFO: chroot (/var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64) unlocked and deleted State Changed: unlock buildroot State Changed: init State Changed: lock buildroot Mock Version: 1.1.12 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.12 INFO: enabled root cache State Changed: unpacking root cache INFO: enabled yum cache State Changed: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache State Changed: running yum State Changed: unlock buildroot State Changed: setup State Changed: build INFO: Done(apf-doc-1.13-1.fc15.src.rpm) Config(default) 1 minutes 57 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-15-x86_64/result State Changed: end -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #4 from Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; --- Thank you for having a look at the spec file and your greatly appreciated help. I'm still interested in having the package included in Fedora. I want to learn about the overall process so that I may help in packaging other software, too. Thanks for pointing out the one ticket per package rule. I will continue improving the apf.spec file and will create another ticket for the apf-doc documentation package. Regarding the forbidden things: I will remove the echo commands. What do you mean by conflicting macro usage? With unnecessary buildroot stuff, you are refering to the mkdir commands, aren't you? I suppose you mean that the directories are already present because of the prerequisite rpm packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu&gt; --- OK, let me take a quick look and make more specific comments. This does build fine; I get a few rpmlint complaints: apf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /var/www/apf-1.15/README_en.txt apf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /var/www/apf-1.15/lgpl-3.0.txt apf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /var/www/apf-1.15/gpl-3.0.txt apf.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /var/www/apf-1.15/README_de.txt These all need to be cleaned up to remove DOS line endings. Pretty much everything in this package is installed in the wrong place. You cannot install into /var/www. This is discussed explicitly in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Web_Applications /usr/share/apf (not versioned) or even a less generic /usr/share/adventure-framework would be a more reasonable place, I'd think. BuildRoot, the first line of %install, the entire %clean section and the %defattr line in %files are completely unnecessary in Fedora and should be removed. You don't need an empty %build section at all. Packages should not depend on the base php package. There's a draft about this here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PHP which should make its way into the actual guideline relatively soon. Since this does include an apache conf file, depending on httpd is OK. Why does this package require a local mysql server? Wouldn't it work with a remote server? Macro forms of basic comments like %{__rm} should not be used. Just use "rm" instead; it's a whole lot less typing, and we're not going to remove rm from the path pretty much ever. You call dos2unix without having any dependency on it. I have no idea why it doesn't fail; maybe the find calls aren't working as you expect. It's pretty suboptimal to do selinux setup in scriptlets. It would be better, once a proper location for the files is chosen, to get the base selinux package to include the proper file contexts. The selinux folks are very responsive. You should use a proper systemd call to restart httpd, and include the proper dependencies for it, if indeed you really feel like doing that. Personally I don't think that installing this package should mess with a running httpd, and the other webapps I checked don't do that. There's no need at all to do this: %dir %{_localstatedir}/www/apf-%{version}/ %{_localstatedir}/www/apf-%{version}/* Instead, just use one line: %{_localstatedir}/www/apf-%{version}/ You shoud put the README files somewhere under docdir instead of spreading through all through the application directory, unless there's some specific reason they need to be where they are. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #8 from Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; --- As I still need sponsorship, I did an unofficial review of bz#838720 and tried to help in bz#807821. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #10 from Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; --- Is there anything else I could do in order to get sponsored and to succeed with the Adventure PHP Framework review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |orion(a)cora.nwra.com, | |reiner(a)rottmann.it Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |orion(a)cora.nwra.com Flags| |needinfo?(reiner(a)rottmann.i | |t) --- Comment #12 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; --- I'll take this. Are you still interested in packaging it? Looks like 1.17 is out. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #14 from Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; --- Spec URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm RPM URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf-1.17-1.fc19.noarch.rpm MOCK: [rottmrei@fedora19 SRPMS]$ mock apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm You are attempting to run "mock" which requires administrative privileges, but more information is needed in order to do so. Authenticating as "root" Password: INFO: mock.py version 1.1.33 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run INFO: Start(apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm) Config(fedora-19-x86_64) Start: lock buildroot Start: clean chroot Finish: clean chroot Finish: lock buildroot Start: chroot init Start: lock buildroot Mock Version: 1.1.33 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.33 INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start: cleaning yum metadata Finish: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache Start: device setup Finish: device setup Start: yum update Start: Outputting list of available packages Finish: Outputting list of available packages Finish: yum update Start: creating cache Finish: creating cache Finish: lock buildroot Finish: chroot init INFO: Installed packages: Start: build phase for apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Start: device setup Finish: device setup Start: build setup for apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Finish: build setup for apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Start: rpmbuild -bb apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Start: Outputting list of installed packages Finish: Outputting list of installed packages Finish: rpmbuild -bb apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Finish: build phase for apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm INFO: Done(apf-1.17-1.fc19.src.rpm) Config(default) 5 minutes 14 seconds INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/fedora-19-x86_64/result Finish: run RPMLINT: [rottmrei@fedora19 ~]$ rpmlint -i /home/rottmrei/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/apf-1.17-1.fc19.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #16 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; --- What he said :) Also, no need for the mock output, it's not very useful (other than noting that it builds). I'll do a full review after the above is fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #18 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; --- What's your FAS account name? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | --- Comment #20 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; --- - The first show stopper is the license for apps/extensions/htmlheader/biz/JSMin.php: * Copyright (c) 2002 Douglas Crockford (www.crockford.com) * * Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of * this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in * the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to * use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies * of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do * so, subject to the following conditions: * * The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all * copies or substantial portions of the Software. * * The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil. This last clause is unenforceable and is as such forbidden from Fedora. See bug #455407. - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Add %doc *.txt to %files to take care of this and ship the readmes. Also I don't think the License field is correct (even excluding the JSMin.php issue). - Looks like it bundles apps/modules/recaptcha/external/google/recaptchalib.php. That will need to be packaged separately. - Remove %clean completely, it is not needed Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #22 from Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; --- Got feedback from the APF devs. The APF only uses the LGPL now. The recaptchalib.php and the JSMin.php will be made optional so that the Fedora package may omit them. A feature request has been filed and will be worked on in a couple of days. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(reiner(a)rottmann.i |needinfo- |t) | --- Comment #23 from Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; --- I've tested a beta release in November that made files with "problematic" licenses an optional download. Meanwhile a new stable version has been released and I recreated the RPM: Spec URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf.spec SRPM URL: http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf-2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm A koji scratch build for Rawhide succeeded: [rottmrei@vagrant-f19 SRPMS]$ koji build --scratch rawhide apf-2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm Uploading srpm: apf-2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm [====================================] 100% 00:00:06 1.16 MiB 172.90 KiB/sec Created task: 6480615 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6480615 Watching tasks (this may be safely interrupted)... 6480615 build (rawhide, apf-2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm): open (arm02-builder22.arm.fedoraproject.org) 6480616 buildArch (apf-2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-10.phx2.fedoraproject.org) 6480616 buildArch (apf-2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm, noarch): open (buildvm-10.phx2.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 1 open 1 done 0 failed 6480615 build (rawhide, apf-2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm): open (arm02-builder22.arm.fedoraproject.org) -> closed 0 free 0 open 2 done 0 failed 6480615 build (rawhide, apf-2.0-2.fc19.src.rpm) completed successfully -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #24 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; --- - I believe the license should be "LGPLv3+" - Remove %clean *completely* - My last initial concern is whether we are unbundling jquery yet from packages, I've posted a message on the packaging list about that. Once I've heard pack on that, I'll do the full review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 --- Comment #25 from Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; --- Any news about the unbundling of jquery, yet? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(reiner(a)rottmann.i | |t) | --- Comment #27 from Reiner Rottmann <reiner(a)rottmann.it&gt; --- I am still interested. I've updated the RPM/SPEC to include the latest version. I've informed the project that there are CVEs in the jquery code and they will fix that this week. http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf.spec http://www.rottmann.it/apf/review/apf-2.1-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734248 Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(reiner(a)rottmann.i | |t) | --- Comment #29 from Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com&gt; --- rpmlint: apf.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/adventure-php-framework/APF/migration/migrate-code.sh 0644L /bin/bash apf.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/adventure-php-framework/APF/migration/relocate.sh 0644L /bin/bash apf.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/adventure-php-framework/APF/migration/migrate-config.sh 0644L /bin/bash - Was upstream ever notified about the line ending issue? (Just wondering if dos2unix is still needed - seems like a tarball should have the proper line-endings). - I (still) believe the license should be "LGPLv3+" - I don't think the jquery.ui vulnerability applies - doesn't look to use jquery.ui. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component