[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945 Simo Sorce changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-08-15 14:57:40 --- Comment #10 from Simo Sorce --- Built in Rawhide and F21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945 --- Comment #9 from Simo Sorce --- srpm imported -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945 --- Comment #7 from Simo Sorce --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mod_auth_gssapi Short Description: A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache Upstream URL: https://github.com/modauthgssapi/mod_auth_gssapi Owners: simo Branches: master, F21 InitialCC: - -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945 Simo Sorce changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945 Alexander Bokovoy changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |POST --- Comment #6 from Alexander Bokovoy --- Simo, you can request SCM import. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945 Alexander Bokovoy changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Alexander Bokovoy --- Now review passes except know GitHub issue of giving out 403 error code when just checking the existence of an URL. If you use wget or a browser to download sources, they will be returned properly (redirected to the actual download), but HEAD request always gives 403 Forbidden. I don't consider this a problem for the review, it is clearly github issue, not mod_auth_gssapi itself. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945 --- Comment #4 from Simo Sorce --- After a brief consultation I released upstream a new 1.0.1 version so we can drop patches from the review srpm. Here are new srpm and spec files: Spec URL: https://simo.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mod_auth_gssapi.spec SRPM URL: https://simo.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mod_auth_gssapi-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945 --- Comment #3 from Simo Sorce --- Ok I fixed the typos, added a couple of patches from upstream and uploaded revised spec and srpm files for review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945 Alexander Bokovoy changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Alexander Bokovoy --- Moving to a formal review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1128945] Review Request: mod_auth_gssapi - A SPNEGO/GSSAPI Authentication module for Apache
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128945
Alexander Bokovoy changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||aboko...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|aboko...@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Bokovoy ---
I'm doing the review of mod_auth_gssapi.
I've did get it successfully running on Fedora 20 with a small patch I pushed
to github and raised as a pull request upstream. With this fix and need to fix
Description for typos, I think this package is ready for Fedora.
We'll work upstream to get more documentation.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: %defattr present but not needed
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[!]: Package functions as described.
Package requires explicit linking against openssl (pull request is sent
upstream)
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not inc
