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(a)math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO| |182235
nThis| |
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tibbs(a)math.uh.edu
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From tibbs(a)math.uh.edu 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.