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: lurker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185535 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-04-13 11:38 EST ------- Some quick comments: Please use a complete URL in Source0 so that spectool can automatically fetch the source. If Sourceforge wasn't throwing "Internal server error" at the moment I'd give more detail (and I could test out a build of the package). gcc-c++ is not permitted in BuildRequires:. I imagine that RPM will figure out what you have in Requires:, but I can't verify that at the moment. It's much cleaner to refer to %{SOURCE1} rather than $RPM_SOURCE_DIR/lurker-httpd.conf.in. There's rarely a good reason to ever use $RPM_SOURCE_DIR. Is %{buildsubdir} guaranteed to be defined? I think that world-writable directory is going to be a blocker. If the end user wants to open the permissions up, that would be their business. I think modern MTAs can be configured to deliver as the appropriate user so this shouldn't be a big deal in practise. You define %{mta_owner} and %{mta_group} but don't reference them anywhere. I find that defining a macro for something that's referenced only once in the spec (like, say, %{httpdconffile}) is a bit confusing, but that's just personal taste. -- 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-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
