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=816975 Marcela Mašláňová <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Marcela Mašláňová <[email protected]> 2012-05-03 08:42:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > updated package is available here: > Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/pvrabec/mod_security/mod_security_crs.spec > SRPM URL: > http://people.redhat.com/pvrabec/mod_security/mod_security_crs-2.2.4-2.fc16.src.rpm > > Some issues that you mentioned are fixed. > > What is not fixed? > > * MD5SUM this package : 160321534ba4859ccdb04ae1648fb51d > MD5SUM upstream package : 62179bdbe8304e997ff206cb3bf62f12 > This must be bug in fedora-review tool. :) I have double checked the sources > from upstream and it was OK. > I filed a bug https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/ticket/49 > * "Why are you using modsecurity.d instead of modesecurity?" > I'm inclined to "modsecurity.d" for these reasons: > - upstream prefers .d > - we used to put rules files in .d directory > - a main package (mod_security) use /etc/httpd/modsecurity.d/ for rules > OK. > * perl and lua dependencies are not relevant because we don't ship any scripts > in the package. > OK. > * mod_security >= 2.6.5 & mod_security review > mod_security-2.6.5 is already available in rawhide. The review is not needed. > > > I hope the rest is OK. thnx. for the review. OK. APPROVED -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
