https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2173751 --- Comment #18 from Carl George 🤠 <carl@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I was just about to comment on that m4 thing. Thanks for sending that upstream. We don't necessarily need to wait for upstream to merge that and the pcre2 change. We can include them in the package as patch files, with comments linking to their upstream PRs. In fact I recommend doing that. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/PatchUpstreamStatus/ One other small tweak that is needed, I can see the httpd-mmn requirement was added, but it's missing the %{_httpd_mmn} qualifier. This is the equivalent of a library soname requirement. It ensures that the module depends on a compatible version of httpd with which it was built with. I was able to locate an old packaging guideline draft about this, but it appears it never made it out of draft status. It's outdated as it says that you need to define _httpd_mmn, and that's defined by default. But we should still follow the requires part. -Requires: httpd-mmn +Requires: httpd-mmn = %{_httpd_mmn} https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ApacheHTTPModules#Run-Time_Dependencies -- 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=2173751 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
