[Bug 185535] Review Request: lurker

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: lurker


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=185535


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tibbs at math.uh.edu




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-04-13 11:38 EST -------
Some quick comments:

Please use a complete URL in Source0 so that spectool can automatically fetch
the source.  If Sourceforge wasn't throwing "Internal server error" at the
moment I'd give more detail (and I could test out a build of the package).

gcc-c++ is not permitted in BuildRequires:.

I imagine that RPM will figure out what you have in Requires:, but I can't
verify that at the moment.

It's much cleaner to refer to %{SOURCE1} rather than
$RPM_SOURCE_DIR/lurker-httpd.conf.in.  There's rarely a good reason to ever use
$RPM_SOURCE_DIR.

Is %{buildsubdir} guaranteed to be defined?

I think that world-writable directory is going to be a blocker.  If the end user
wants to open the permissions up, that would be their business.  I think modern
MTAs can be configured to deliver as the appropriate user so this shouldn't be a
big deal in practise.

You define %{mta_owner} and %{mta_group} but don't reference them anywhere.

I find that defining a macro for something that's referenced only once in the
spec (like, say, %{httpdconffile}) is a bit confusing, but that's just personal
taste.

-- 
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.