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: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-19 23:47 EST ------- It is indeed a humorous name, but that's what upstream chose. But did they have to choose "sex" for the executable? The jokes will be endless. The package builds fine in mock (development, x86_64) and rpmlint has this to say: E: sextractor-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/sextractor-2.4.4/src/fits/fitsconv.c This odd warning derives from the fact that src/fits/fitsconv.c is executable for some reason, and it keeps its permissions when copied into the -debuginfo package. You should chmod it in %prep to shut this up. Something I wonder about: There are a couple of files in /usr/share/sextractor which look like configuration files; are these actually used by the program? Are they supposed to be edit by the administrator? If so, they really should live in /etc and be marked as %config(noreplace). And if they're example defaults, they should go in with the rest of the documentation. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: 9f1389ae9229c65f0a6a0b264deb314f sextractor-2.4.4.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane; just provides sextractor = 2.4.4-1.fc6 and requires nothing but glibc. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate (one source file is executable) * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- 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