https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239790
huwang <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?([email protected] | |) | --- Comment #4 from huwang <[email protected]> --- Hi Tomas, Thanks for your review. I agree with your changes and update the spec file and srpm here: Spec URL: https://huwang.fedorapeople.org/mod_proxy_cluster.spec SRPM URL: https://huwang.fedorapeople.org/mod_proxy_cluster-1.3.19-1.fc38.src.rpm (In reply to Tomas Korbar from comment #3) > Hi huwang, > I reviewed spec file and did some changes that you can see in the attached > patch. > I'll try to clarify them: > > 1. I changed packaging of your selinux policy to conform to > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SELinux/ > IndependentPolicy#Creating_Custom_Product_Policies > 2. Unified the indenation to general use of spaces > 3. Removed the buildroot specification as it is not neccessary > 4. Changed source URL to be more straightforward and used autosetup macro > accordingly > 5. Removed the apxs macros as i was not sure whether they are neccessary > (please return them if they are truly necessary but package builds and > installs fine without them) > 6. Defined the aplipdir on top of the spec so it can be defined just once > 7. Updated build section so it uses macros for configure script and parallel > build > 8. Removed %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) as it is not necessary > 9. Added %license record to %files section > 10. Updated License tag so it conforms to SPDX naming > 11. Added requirement of http_port_t type to your selinux policy > > Now i have a few questions. On github i see that the latest version is 2.0.3. > Is there a reason why the package ships 1.3.19? mod_proxy_cluster 1.3.19 can work with http 2.4.57 well (httpd version is 2.4.57 in fedora), but we haven't done the fully test for mod_proxy_cluster 2.0.3 with httpd 2.4.57. So I think importing mod_proxy_cluster is safe, I will create a bugzilla for upgrading it to the latest version. > Also i see that there are excluded archs i686 i386. Is it necessary? Yes, we haven't support them for some years. > If it truly is then you will have to file bugs for both of them after the > release > and explain why is it so. > > Looking forward to getting your opinion. -- 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2239790 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202239790%23c4 _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
