[Bug 196146] Review Request: mod_nss

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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_nss


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196146





------- Additional Comments From jwilson at redhat.com  2006-07-17 12:43 EST -------
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently
* dist tag is present
* build root is correct
      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* license field matches the actual license: Apache
* license is open source-compatible, license text included in package
* source files match upstream:
      feb2d314983a72318cc08e0650501fac  mod_nss-1.0.3.tar.gz
* latest version is being packaged

* BuildRequires are proper:
  nspr-devel >= 4.6, nss-devel >= 3.11
  httpd-devel >= 0:2.0.52, apr-devel, apr-util-devel
  autoconf

Technically, the apr-devel BR could be left off, since apr-util-devel Requires:
apr-devel. Similarly, nspr-devel could be left off, as nss-devel Requires:
nspr-devel >= 4.6 already. Ah, one could get even cleaner: httpd-devel Requires:
apr-devel and apr-util-devel. So you could reduce BuildRequires: down to just:

  nss-devel >= 3.11, httpd-devel >= 0:2.0.52, autoconf

Up to you whether you want to do that or not though.

* package builds in mock (FC6/x86_64).

* rpmlint is (mostly) silent
W: mod_nss dangling-relative-symlink /etc/httpd/alias/libnssckbi.so
../../../usr/lib64/libnssckbi.so
-Not pretty, but better than copying the file over from another package, would
be optimal to configure mod_nss to simply look for the .so in /usr/lib(64)

W: mod_nss dangerous-command-in-%post rm
-We're safeguarding that rather tightly, necessary for proper cert creation, no
worries here

* final provides and requires are sane:
  config(mod_nss) = 1.0.3-1.fc6
  libmodnss.so()(64bit)
  mod_nss = 1.0.3-1.fc6
  =
  config(mod_nss) = 1.0.3-1.fc6
  httpd >= 0:2.0.52
  libnspr4.so()(64bit)
  libnss3.so()(64bit)
  libnss3.so(NSS_3.10.2)(64bit)
  libnss3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit)
  libnss3.so(NSS_3.3)(64bit)
  libnss3.so(NSS_3.4)(64bit)
  libnss3.so(NSS_3.5)(64bit)
  libnss3.so(NSS_3.6)(64bit)
  libplc4.so()(64bit)
  libplds4.so()(64bit)
  libsmime3.so()(64bit)
  libsoftokn3.so()(64bit)
  libssl3.so()(64bit)
  libssl3.so(NSS_3.2)(64bit)
  libssl3.so(NSS_3.4)(64bit)
  libssl3.so(NSS_3.7.4)(64bit)
  nspr >= 4.6
  nss >= 3.11
  nss-tools >= 3.11

* no shared libraries are present
* package is not relocatable
* owns the directories it creates
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't
* no duplicates in %files
* file permissions are appropriate
* %clean is present
* %check is present and all tests pass: n/a
* scriptlets are sane
* code, not content
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package
* no headers
* no pkgconfig files
* no libtool .la files lingering about
* not a GUI app
* not a web app


Package APPROVED, I'll ping someone about sponsorship...

-- 
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.