https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1794832 --- Comment #3 from Benjamin Gilbert <bgilbert@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks for the review! > Umm, is this 32-bit or 64-bit Windows? If it's for 64-bit Windows, it should probably be indicated as such. The binaries match the package architecture, so yeah, 64-bit in both cases. The filenames ultimately uploaded to GitHub do include the CPU architecture, but it didn't seem necessary here. > 1. Why are we installing random binaries into %{_libdir}/fcct instead of %{_libexecdir}/fcct? They're not executable programs from Linux's perspective, so libexecdir didn't seem appropriate. libdir seemed a better fit for architecture-specific data. I've now removed the executable bits as well. > 2. This directory is not correctly owned by any package generated by this spec. Please fix that. Yup, fixed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
