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: varnish - High-performance HTTP accelerator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=230275 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2007-04-17 21:37 EST ------- 1. ok, looks good. 2. ok. looks good. 3. ok. looks good. 4. ok. looks good. 5. ok. looks good. 6. ok on static libs, but did you really want to disable the dynamic libs as well? Does anything known link against the varnish dynamic libs? Is there a reason to not ship them? 7. ok. looks good. You shouldn't need the LICENSE in all the subpackages, but it's not a blocker if you want to do so. The rpmlint warning about no docs can be ignored for devel subpackages. If you really want to ship the INSTALL thats fine I would think. 8. ok. looks good. 9. ok. looks good. 10. ok. looks good. So the only final question I see here is if the devel package should be shipped or not. It's only the static libs that are reccomended against, not the dynamic ones. -- 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