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_line_edit - A DSO module for the apache web server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=428981 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |182235 nThis| | AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-19 13:41 EST ------- Note that as far as I know, you can't link GPLv2 code with Apache. You can link GPLv3 code, however. This package is GPLv2+, so I'd think it would be OK but I'm not really an expert so I'll block FE-Legal. Note to FE-Legal: there are plenty of GPL apache modules already in the distro; in my checkout, five have License: tags of "GPL" and one (mod_security) says "GPLv2". I can, however, review the packaging. * source files match upstream: 5a71c8fc62cff97e9d8a0d20705daafc5200d990c33c7d1db156bd79db0d51da index.html 9c6c33d401f545ebd3826df96a2ccaa07b25db0b99ba13e4d88b10a2d49f8b0b mod_line_edit.c The summary is a bit content-free; it describes all apache modules. How about Symmary: A general-puropse filter for text documents which is still a bit vague but I can't think of anything better at the moment. (Additionally, there's no point in including the name of the package in the summary.) In your %install and %clean sections, there's no point in the tests checking that the buildroot is not /; you set the buildroot to something that's not / earlier in the spec. So just a couple of minor tweaks and I would approve this package, assuming that Legal signs off on it and indicates what the License: tag should be. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X summary is somewhat content-free * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. ? unsure about the license * license text not included upstream (though the license header is extracted from the source and included as %doc) * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. X %clean is present, but not in the usual format. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: config(mod_line_edit) = 1.0.0-2.fc9 mod_line_edit.so()(64bit) mod_line_edit = 1.0.0-2.fc9 = config(mod_line_edit) = 1.0.0-2.fc9 httpd httpd-mmn = 20051115 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I have not tested this package. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review