Spec Name or Url: http://ensc.de/fedora/fnord.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://ensc.de/fedora/fnord-1.10-0.1.src.rpm GNU Arch: ensc (http://ensc.de/tla/{archives}/fedora) fnord--review--0 Description: fnord is a small and fast webserver with CGI-capability and has been written by Felix von Leitner. fnord supports virtual hosting und runs under tcpserver/ipsvd.
* Tue Dec 27 2005 Enrico Scholz <enrico.scholz.de> - 1.10-0.7 - added initng initscripts - do not make the 'fnord' user a member of the 'www' group because this group does not exist in a minimal installation - added /srv/www/fnord directory - apply -setgid patch http://ensc.de/fedora/fnord.spec http://ensc.de/fedora/fnord-1.10-0.7.src.rpm
Hi, Enrico. Your package looks very well. I just have a couple of questions before I approve it; 1.) You provide initng startup script, but what about classical LSB init scripts? Please refer to existing init scripts or the following document in case you need some aid writing them: [1] http://www.linux-foundation.org/spec//booksets/LSB-Core-generic/LSB-Core-generic.html#TOCSYSINIT 2.) Apart from init scripts -- is fnord able to run only in standalone mode or also from inetd? In case it is able to run from inetd, please provide a xinetd file for the server. 3.) Why do you link against dietlibc, not glibc? Does dietlibc make sense for anything apart from embedded environments? As far as I know, glibc can not be easily removed from Fedora, nor am I able to imagine why would someone do that.
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
#176582#c6 says that > FESCo voted against allowing ipsvd to link statically against dietlibc in > Fedora. I don't see how the outcome could be different for this package, but if > you want it to also be voted upon, please say so. Same for this package. Packages depending on this were revoked, so I am refusing also this one. If you feel that it was an incorrect decision, please reopen and let me know. Also, if you would use the same reasoning as in #176582#c2, please do not bother to reopen. Arguments like "are implemented correctly" are not only just not good enough FESCo, but for everyone.