[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-09 07:10 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/mod_mono.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/mod_mono-1.1.17-3.src.rpm Spec file altered as the SOURCE and URL were wrong (URL was actually the SOURCE!) Rebuilt -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779
nThis||
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-09 20:29 EST ---
All the inital items seem to be fixed up...
you do now seem to have two Source0 lines:
Source0: http://go-mono.com/sources-latest/
Source0: http://go-mono.com/sources/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
The first one of those should be the URL: tag.
Provided you fix that up, I'm happy to APPROVE this package.
Don't forget to close this bug NEXTRELEASE once it's been imported and built.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 16:52 EST --- Fixed all the bits. The source is actually permitted as it stands (I queried this over another package a while back and it was fine) rpmlint is now clean mock is happy (i386) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-08 23:59 EST --- In reply to comment #12: Great. Can you upload the fixed version to look at? :) Is there any reason not to include the full URL in Source0? It does make it easier for someone to download the source without having to hunt around on the site for a download link... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 23:06 EST --- OK - Package name OK - Spec file matches base package name. OK - Meets Packaging Guidelines. See below - License See below - License field in spec matches See below - License file included in package OK - Spec in American English OK - Spec is legible. OK - Sources match upstream md5sum: 3f0408a350f6f55029b75f4332be171f mod_mono-1.1.17.tar.gz 3f0408a350f6f55029b75f4332be171f mod_mono-1.1.17.tar.gz.1 OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. OK - BuildRequires correct OK - Spec handles locales/find_lang OK - Spec has needed ldconfig in post and postun OK - Package owns all the directories it creates. OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files. See below - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good. See below - Package has a correct %clean section. OK - Spec has consistant macro usage. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime. OK - .la files are removed. OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own. OK - No rpmlint output. SHOULD Items: See below - Should include License or ask upstream to include it. OK - Should build in mock. Issues: 1. URL and Source0 are not correct. URL should be the link to the website of the package. Suggest something like: http://www.mono-project.com/Mod_mono Source0 should be the full link to the source file. Suggest something like: http://go-mono.com/sources/mod_mono/mod_mono-1.1.17.tar.gz 2. The License looks wrong. The code and the COPYING file are the Apache License, Version 2.0. NOT the GPL. Note that these items are duplicated from comment #6. Can you fix them? Or indicate why not? 3. Might include the INSTALL doc? In many cases this is a generic document from the auto tools, but in this case it has some useful apache configuration information, IMHO. 4. Might change the defattr from: %defattr(-, root, root) to %defattr(-, root, root,-) 5. You seem to be missing a %clean section. Please add one. 6. You should perhaps Require: httpd = 2.2 ? Otherwise this package is pretty useless without apache? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-09-07 23:17 EST --- Oh, I ran rpmlint on the wrong build. It reports: W: mod_mono conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/httpd/conf.d/mod_mono.conf Should set that to be %config(noreplace) ? E: mod_mono no-cleaning-of-buildroot E: mod_mono no-%clean-section That would get fixed by adding a %clean section... W: mod_mono mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs Would be good to clean out and only use spaces or tabs... -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-30 20:25 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/mod_mono.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/mod_mono-1.1.17-1.src.rpm FINALLY! Compiles cleanly, rpmlint is more or less happy. The package is already architecture agnostic, though I had to mess in the spec so that the config when to http/conf.d instead of httpd/conf Plenty of fixes to the spec file as well -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |NEEDINFO_REPORTER -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEEDINFO_REPORTER |ASSIGNED --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-08-10 08:44 EST --- Not much has changed, though I'm expecting an updated release from the Mono people soon -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-04 09:37 EST --- Spec URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/mod_mono.spec SRPM URL: http://www.knox.net.nz/~nodoid/mod_mono-1.1.14-3.src.rpm Change of URL A couple of tweaks. I'll address #6 today -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-05-10 10:01 EST ---
Created an attachment (id=128850)
-- (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=128850action=view)
Mock Build Failure log
Here's a couple of items:
1. URL is incorrect. Should be 'http://www.mono-project.com/Mod_mono'.
2. Need full Source0.
'http://go-mono.com/sources/%{name}/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz'
3. License is Apache, not GPL
4. Fails to build in Mock (devel). I've attach the build log for you. The
problem appears to be the test for apache in the configure.ac file. It's not
getting the version of apache correctly and assuming it's 1.3 , instead of 2.2.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- You are receiving this mail because: ---
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.
___
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 189150] Review Request: mod_mono
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_mono https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189150 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-04-24 02:28 EST --- The conf file should be in conf.d - good catch, thanks. The others are warnings - not too concerned over them. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
