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_fcgid https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195666 ------- Additional Comments From mfleming+rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-18 01:57 EST ------- NEEDSWORK (but not much) Review for release 8.fc5: * RPM name is OK * Source mod_fcgid.1.09.tar.gz is the same as upstream * Works OK (some of my scripts aren't ready for it though. :-)) * Builds OK in mock (Core 5, i386 and x86_64) Needs work: * Spec file: some paths are not replaced with RPM macros (wiki: QAChecklist item 7) Note from me: Your spec uses a lot of %{_rm} style expansions (rather than plain ol' whatever-"rm"-is-in-$PATH) so this may confuse rpmlint et. al. I personally don't have an issue with it as long as it's readable and consistent. * The BuildRoot must be cleaned at the beginning of %install Notes: * I got the following barf to console when removing the package via rpm -e (FC5, up-to-date targeted policy) [root@pong mfleming]# rpm -e mod_fcgid /usr/sbin/semodule: SELinux policy is not managed or store cannot be accessed. /usr/sbin/semodule: SELinux policy is not managed or store cannot be accessed. libsepol.sepol_genbools_array: boolean allow_httpd_fastcgi_script_anon_write no longer in policy I do like having the policy there, mind you. I should probably do something similar for mlmmj (which can be tricky with targeted policy out of the box) * Would it be possible/useful to scrape the upstream documentation, primarily for the extra directives info? -- 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-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review