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: fnord -- A very fast HTTP server https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176581 ------- Additional Comments From lkundrak@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-21 08:34 EST ------- Some additional comments and complete review: * rpmlint: E: fnord non-standard-gid /srv/www/fnord fnord E: fnord non-standard-dir-perm /srv/www/fnord 0750 The ownership and path are both fine. But could you please pick some more standard path than /srv? Would /var/www be a good choice? E: fnord statically-linked-binary /usr/sbin/fnord-httpd E: fnord statically-linked-binary /usr/sbin/fnord-idx E: fnord statically-linked-binary /usr/sbin/fnord-cgi I asked about linking against dietlibc in the comment above. * The package is named according to guidelines * Spec file name is fine * Package meets the guidelines * Package is licensed under GPL * The license text is included in documentation * To the extend I understand, the spec file is in American English * The spec file is clear, legible and easily understandable * The source matches upstream fnord-1.10.tar.bz2 = MD5(4c7d9f0e2b2f071d4687688f3018ba91) What is the Source1: http://www.fefe.de/fnord/%name-%version.tar.bz2.sig good for? * Tried compiling and running on i386 and x86_64 successfully * Dependency list seems to be complete * Package makes no use of locales * Does not provide dynamically loaded libraries * Not relocatable * Package owns the directory it creates (though correctness of the path is questionable, see comment at the top of this comment) * Contains no duplicate entries in %files * %files sections are fine and contain %defattr * Contains proper %clean section * Consistently uses macros * Contains permissable content (code) * No large quantities of documentation * %doc files are not required for correct function * No header files * No static libraries * No pkgconfig files * No library files * No devel subpackage * No libtool archives * No GUI * No confilcts about files with anny other package * %install begins with removal of PRM_BUILD_ROOT as it should * All filenames are 7bit ASCII, so also valid UTF-8 -- 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