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=452321 --- Comment #15 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-01 11:19:52 EDT --- I don't know how many times he can say that he doesn't want to worry about updating things until after this package is split out. This does still build fine; here's the rpmlint output: PyGreSQL.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/PyGreSQL-3.8.1/tutorial/basics.py PyGreSQL.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/PyGreSQL-3.8.1/tutorial/advanced.py PyGreSQL.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/PyGreSQL-3.8.1/tutorial/basics.py /usr/bin/env PyGreSQL.x86_64: W: doc-file-dependency /usr/share/doc/PyGreSQL-3.8.1/tutorial/advanced.py /usr/bin/env Generally documentation is not made executable. If there's something that people need to be able to execute, it should be installed in the usual location for binaries. If it's just there to look at, there's no reason for it to be executable. It doesn't really hurt anything as long as it doesn't add dependencies that aren't present in the rest of the package, but in this case it does. Of course, that dependency is in coreutils, so it's still not a huge idea, but I'd fix it. PyGreSQL.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages/pg.py 0644 /usr/bin/env PyGreSQL.x86_64: E: non-executable-script /usr/lib64/python2.6/site-packages /pgdb.py 0644 /usr/bin/env For whatever reason, python programmers like to put #! lines even in files that aren't intended to be run. Some people like to fix these up; I don't particularly care. You indicate License: BSD, and docs/readme.txt says "BSD license", but setup.py says license = "Python" and the only license text I can find in the package is actually the MIT license (specifically http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Old_Style_with_legal_disclaimer_4). pgdb.py says "See package documentation for further information on copyright." pg.py has no licensing information. I believe the situation is sufficiently confusing that upstream should be consulted. Perhaps the license on the new version is clearer. -- 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