[Bug 428981] Review Request: mod_line_edit - A DSO module for the apache web server

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]