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=581220 --- Comment #7 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-01 00:47:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > Looks good, comments follow: > Thanks Rex > patches: please document patches (short .spec comment will suffice) , and > preferably consult upstream about them. I submitted the patches and the .prf files of both this and qtlockedfile to the developers. http://bugreports.qt.nokia.com/browse/QTSOLBUG-119 > > $ rpmlint *.rpm x86_64/*.rpm > qtsingleapplication.src:52: W: configure-without-libdir-spec > qtsingleapplication.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm > /usr/lib64/libQtSolutions_SingleApplication-2.6.so.1.0.0 0775L > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. > > I suppose using 'install -p -m755' instead of 'cp -a' can workaround this one, > but you can choose whatever solution works best for you. > I assume that you made a local mock build. Is that the case? If so, mock screws up with umask when building certain packages, e.g. those built with scons. Executables end up with 775. However when the same package is not built in koji, the problem does not occur. "install -pm 755 *" will dereference the symlinks and I would have 4 copies of the same file. I can do an "ln -s" afterwards but that doesn't seem to be an elegant solution. Instead I added a "chmod 755" to make sure the libarry gets the right permission. Here are the latest files: SPEC: http://6mata.com:8014/review/qtsingleapplication.spec SRPM: http://6mata.com:8014/review/qtsingleapplication-2.6-3.fc12.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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review