[Bug 452636] Review Request:http-mod_proxy_html - Module to rewrite content as it passes through an apache proxy.

[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:http-mod_proxy_html - Module to rewrite content as it passes through an apache proxy.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452636





------- Additional Comments From philipp at redfish-solutions.com  2008-06-29 03:29 EST -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > I have no problem merging them.  That's fine.
> > 
> > Some observations:
> > 
> > * we don't need -Wl,"-lxml2" in the invocation of apxs.  We can just use -
lxml2 
> > directly;
> I'm definitely not an expert on apxs, does  -lxml2 get added automatically
> somewhere later in the process?  I originally did not use it and resulted in a
> .so that wasn't linked against libxml2.so.  Had to use LoadFile in Apache to 
get
> things working.

I was just going by the example config file, which says that you need the 
LoadFile anyway...  So the fact that the module wasn't linked (statically) 
against libxml2.a was a good thing.  Plus it means that you can update versions 
of libxml2.so independently, which you lose if the module links statically 
against libxml2.a instead.

> > * similarly, it would be preferable to install via "apxs -i -S 
> > LIBEXECDIR=$RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{modulesdir} -n %{modname} %{modname}.la" as 
I've 
> > done; the .libs directory is an implementation detail of apxs using libtool 
> > that we shouldn't rely on;
> That makes sense to me!
> > Do we really need to supply the path to apxs?  It should be in the default 
> > search path.  If it's not, it might be because someone wants to try out a 
new 
> > version of it (in which case we should use that anyway).
> I don't think we do, I just typically prefer to be more specific than less.

Well, for the person developing a new version of apxs, they might appreciate 
being able to test their changes against all the Apache modules without having 
to modify each and every one of the .spec files to do so.

> > Other than that, I'm fine with the rest of the changes.
> > 
> I'll merge in your suggestions to my spec file.  I don't have a burden to be 
the
> maintainer particularly if you are interested, just let me know.

Either way is fine with me.




-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.