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 #23 from Philip Prindeville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-12 12:01:52 EDT --- (In reply to comment #22) > non-formal review: > > 1) remove the Vendor, Packager, Provides and Excludeos tags > 2) remove Requires: httpd, libxml2 - only Requires necessary should be: > > Requires: httpd-mmn = %(cat %{_includedir}/httpd/.mmn || echo missing) > > 3) use an approved BuildRoot tag, see wiki packaging guidelines > 4) Source: http://apache.webthing.com/mod_proxy_html/mod_proxy_html.tgz > is bad - do upstream not provide versioned URLs? > 5) using %{_sbindir}/apxs throughout is probably a good idea > > 6) License: GPL should follow the licensing conventions on the wiki > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing > > 7) the package should be called simply mod_proxy_html, no httpd- prefix > necessary The most recent version of the .rpm and .spec files are attached directly to this bug report. I'll make the remaining fixes that you suggest that haven't been made (most already have). -- 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@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
