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: fcgi - fastcgi development kit Alias: fcgi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231315 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2007-06-27 20:06 EST ------- This looks like a clean package; I'm not sure why it's been sitting for so long. In addition to the above three complaints, which I agree are OK, rpmlint has the following to say: W: fcgi unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfcgi.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libnsl.so.1 W: fcgi unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfcgi++.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libnsl.so.1 W: fcgi unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/libfcgi++.so.0.0.0 /lib64/libm.so.6 These are merely inefficiencies; configure decides they're necessary even though it seems the library doesn't actually need them. They're so basic that I'm not sure it would be worth the effort to get rid of them, but I suppose you could try if you wanted to. Review: * source files match upstream: 66fc45c6b36a21bf2fbbb68e90f780cc21a9da1fffbae75e76d2b4402d3f05b9 fcgi-2.4.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: fcgi-2.4.0-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm libfcgi++.so.0()(64bit) libfcgi.so.0()(64bit) fcgi = 2.4.0-2.fc8 = /sbin/ldconfig libfcgi++.so.0()(64bit) libfcgi.so.0()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) fcgi-devel-2.4.0-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm fcgi-devel = 2.4.0-2.fc8 = fcgi = 2.4.0-2.fc8 libfcgi++.so.0()(64bit) libfcgi.so.0()(64bit) * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * shared libraries present; unversioned .so links in -devel, and ldconfig called as necessary. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig). * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers in -devel subpackage. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED -- 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