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=488665 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-10 07:15:01 EDT --- [ok, take2: first attempt to reply earlier disappeared with firefox...] (In reply to comment #1) > http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/darcs/hscolour/ Thanks - fixing. > IMO the upstream maintains a nice website. Agreed better to use an upstream website when available and up to date. > ghc-hscolour-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation > ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hscolour-devel These can be waived I think. > hscolour.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/HsColour 0775 Reproduced and still investigating. > hscolour.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/HsColour Yes, I think this is common to ghc executables. I checked and alex, cabal-install, cpphs, ghc, darcs, happy, etc all have this too. > # MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. [14] > Fail: See above rpmlint Fixing with %attr for now anyway. SPEC: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/hscolour/hscolour.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/hscolour/hscolour-1.12-2.fc10.src.rpm -- 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