Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
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 But I looked through owners.list and I see that rpm.uk already owns three packages, so perhaps that tag is out of date.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. |