Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467420 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel.sylvan@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, | |needinfo?(rjones@xxxxxxxxxx | |) --- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel.sylvan@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-09 10:49:38 EDT --- MUST: ? rpmlint: .defs marked executable I went back to my mingw23-libgcrypt review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467403 and it looks like you ended up removing the *.def files altogether. That definitely fixes rpmlint, and I just tried rebuilding gtk-vnc after removing mingw32-gtk2's *.defs, so MinGW does not need those *.def files, but wouldn't someone trying to compile against libgcrypt on Windows need them? What I don't know is whether they absolutely must have +x permissions. I'm guessing that chmod -x'ing them should be safe, after all, they are just header files. Should they be readded to libgcrypt? + package name + spec file name + package guideline-compliant + license complies with guidelines + license field accurate + license file not deleted + spec in US English + spec legible + source matches upstream + builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded + build dependencies complete + locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale N/A library -> ldconfig N/A relocatable: give reason + own all directories + no dupes in %files + permission + %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT + macros used consistently + Package contains code N/A large docs => -doc N/A doc not runtime dependent N/A headers in -devel N/A static in -static + if contains *.pc, req pkgconfig N/A if libfiles are suffixed, the non-suffixed goes to devel N/A devel requires versioned base package N/A desktop file uses desktop-file-install + clean buildroot before install + filenames UTF-8 SHOULD - desc and summary contain translations if available ? package build in mock on all architectures Not tested -- not all dependencies in Fedora yet, thus no Koji + package functioned as described + scriplets are sane N/A other subpackages should require versioned base + if main pkg is development-wise, pkgconfig can go in main package + require package not files -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review