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=452636 --- Comment #27 from Joe Orton <jorton@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-08-13 07:23:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #26) > (In reply to comment #22) > > non-formal review: > > > > 4) Source: http://apache.webthing.com/mod_proxy_html/mod_proxy_html.tgz > > is bad - do upstream not provide versioned URLs? > > Unfortunately, they do not. upstream should be educated then ;) You'll need to work around that and version the tarball manually, I think this is covered in the wiki somewhere. > > 5) using %{_sbindir}/apxs throughout is probably a good idea > > Ok. I thought that allowing for the potential of testing an alternate version > of apxs might be a good thing. I'm not sure it really makes a difference, but it reduces predictability if apxs is picked from $PATH. > All other comments have been addressed. more nit-picking^W^Wreview: 1) this stuff is unnecessary obfuscation: %define base proxy_html %define modname mod_%{base} Name: %{modname} the spec file is for building mod_proxy_html, not an abstract httpd module; so use "Name: mod_proxy_html" and hard-code proxy_html as necessary and mod_proxy_html or %{name} otherwise. 2) the with-xml options should go; the module should be linked against -lxml2 and the conf file purged of LoadFile unconditionally. The upstream method of providing a deliberately broken module is totally crazy and not something that should be supported (even as an option) in Fedora. otherwise looks fine. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review