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: wallpapoz - Gnome Multi Backgrounds and Wallpapers Configuration Tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210467 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2006-10-16 14:32 EST ------- Well, before reporting to upstream, I want to ask you about.. A. By default, this package tries to install xml_processing.py into /usr/bin . This file is called by /usr/bin/daemon_wallpapoz and /usr/bin/wallpapoz so usually this file (xml_processing.py) should be byte-compiled. However, this leaves non-executable files (.pyc and .pyo files) in /usr/bin and rpmlint claims about this (non-executable-in-bin). Also, by default xml_processing.py has 0644 permission. This is correct because xml_processing.py is just called by daemon_wallpapoz and wallpapoz. However, leaving this file (xml_processing.py) under /usr/bin also calls rpmlint complaint. So I moved xml_processing.py to /usr/share/wallpapoz . However, this is somewhat fedora-specific. Also, moving xml_processing.py requires some fixes for two other python scripts. Then I wonder if I should ask for upstream to move this file (xml_processing.py). I mean that I wonder to what degree I (and upstream) should obey the rule of "all files under /usr/bin should be executable" Or just I should leave xml_processing.py under /usr/bin/ , set the permisson as 0755 and dont create xml_processing.py{c,o} ? B. I usually think that python scripts under /usr/bin should not have the name of *.py , however, should I also ask for upstream to rename the files? (for this package, renaming .py files in /usr/bin also requires the fixes for the contents of wallpapoz.py and daemon_wallpapoz.py). C. This package tries to install all files under /usr directory. This is truly bad for rpm building, however, if upstream doesn't care about rpm system and only think, I wonder how I should ask for upstream to make install.py have something like DESTDIR (upstream may just say, "anyway install should be done by root, so this is unnecessary"). In short, all I am concerned is that if I should ask for upstream to adapt their package to the way which seems somewhat fedora-specific....... -- 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