Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: mod_nss https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196146 ------- Additional Comments From jwilson@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-07-17 12:43 EST ------- * package meets naming and packaging guidelines * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently * dist tag is present * build root is correct %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * license field matches the actual license: Apache * license is open source-compatible, license text included in package * source files match upstream: feb2d314983a72318cc08e0650501fac mod_nss-1.0.3.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged * BuildRequires are proper: nspr-devel >= 4.6, nss-devel >= 3.11 httpd-devel >= 0:2.0.52, apr-devel, apr-util-devel autoconf Technically, the apr-devel BR could be left off, since apr-util-devel Requires: apr-devel. Similarly, nspr-devel could be left off, as nss-devel Requires: nspr-devel >= 4.6 already. Ah, one could get even cleaner: httpd-devel Requires: apr-devel and apr-util-devel. So you could reduce BuildRequires: down to just: nss-devel >= 3.11, httpd-devel >= 0:2.0.52, autoconf Up to you whether you want to do that or not though. * package builds in mock (FC6/x86_64). * rpmlint is (mostly) silent W: mod_nss dangling-relative-symlink /etc/httpd/alias/libnssckbi.so ../../../usr/lib64/libnssckbi.so -Not pretty, but better than copying the file over from another package, would be optimal to configure mod_nss to simply look for the .so in /usr/lib(64) W: mod_nss dangerous-command-in-%post rm -We're safeguarding that rather tightly, necessary for proper cert creation, no worries here * final provides and requires are sane: config(mod_nss) = 1.0.3-1.fc6 libmodnss.so()(64bit) mod_nss = 1.0.3-1.fc6 = config(mod_nss) = 1.0.3-1.fc6 httpd >= 0:2.0.52 libnspr4.so()(64bit) libnss3.so()(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.10.2)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.3)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.4)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.5)(64bit) libnss3.so(NSS_3.6)(64bit) libplc4.so()(64bit) libplds4.so()(64bit) libsmime3.so()(64bit) libsoftokn3.so()(64bit) libssl3.so()(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.4)(64bit) libssl3.so(NSS_3.7.4)(64bit) nspr >= 4.6 nss >= 3.11 nss-tools >= 3.11 * no shared libraries are present * package is not relocatable * owns the directories it creates * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't * no duplicates in %files * file permissions are appropriate * %clean is present * %check is present and all tests pass: n/a * scriptlets are sane * code, not content * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package * no headers * no pkgconfig files * no libtool .la files lingering about * not a GUI app * not a web app Package APPROVED, I'll ping someone about sponsorship... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review