Bug 177556
| Summary: | Review Request: mod_extract_forwarded | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Tim Jackson <rpm> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jason Tibbitts <j> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | j |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-cvs+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2006-04-29 16:29:37 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 163779 | ||
|
Description
Tim Jackson
2006-01-11 19:43:49 UTC
No objections nor a review, but I've used mod_rpaf from http://stderr.net/apache/rpaf/ in the past for similar purposes. Do you happen to be familiar with it? Based on quickly skimming the descriptions, mod_rpaf appears to deal with virtual hosts (X-Host/X-Forwarded-Host) in addition to X-Forwarded-For; mod_extract_forwarded's docs don't mention that. No, I've not come across mod_rpaf. They appear to do substantially the same thing. X-Host/X-Forwarded-Host isn't something I've come across, since I've only used Squid (which can be configured to pass on the "real" hostname to the backend server), so I can't comment on the support of either module for it. Well, heck, I worked up this review and then I noticed the NEEDSPONSOR blocker. But I looked through owners.list and I see that rpm.uk already owns three packages, so perhaps that tag is out of date. I'll go ahead and include the review and just leave this as FE-NEW until things are cleared up. * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. It's not included separately in the package, but this is not necessary as the upstream tarball does not include it. * source files match upstream: d7aeb59fa81cbe74c485c33873ea1c65 extract_forwarded-2.0.2.tar.gz d7aeb59fa81cbe74c485c33873ea1c65 extract_forwarded-2.0.2.tar.gz-srpm * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane. * no shared libraries are present, but they're not in the default locations so there's no need to call ldconfig. * package is not relocatable. * creates no directories. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no upstream test suite. * 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 droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED, assuming the NEEDSPONSOR blocker is incorrect. Thanks very much for the review Jason. The NEEDSPONSOR blocker is indeed incorrect ; I'll remove it and import. Built OK in devel - job #8524 Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: mod_extract_forwarded New Branches: EL-4 EL-5 cvs done. |