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=693798 --- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-04-08 12:09:33 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Issues: > [!] : MUST - Rpmlint output is silent. > > octave-image-debuginfo.i686: W: spurious-executable-perm > /usr/src/debug/image-1.0.13/src/edtfunc.c Fixed. > octave-image.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided octave-forge > octave-image.i686: W: hidden-file-or-dir > /usr/share/octave/packages/image-1.0.13/packinfo/.autoload > octave-image.i686: E: zero-length > /usr/share/octave/packages/image-1.0.13/packinfo/.autoload > octave-image.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm > [!] : SHOULD - Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm > -q --requires). > Provides: octave(api) = api-v47+} Ah, typo in the macros. Will get a new octave package out asap. Interestingly, rpm/yum appears to ignore the }.. I could install via yum just fine. > Requires: (strange, are this used?) > __bilateral__.oct()(64bit) > __bwdist.oct()(64bit) > bwfill.oct()(64bit) > bwlabel.oct()(64bit) > __custom_gaussian_smoothing__.oct()(64bit) > deriche.oct()(64bit) > graycomatrix.oct()(64bit) > hough_line.oct()(64bit) > __imboundary__.oct()(64bit) > nonmax_supress.oct()(64bit) > rotate_scale.oct()(64bit) > __spatial_filtering__.oct()(64bit) Well, these are the octave interfaces that are installed. I think we can leave them. They already have their own namespace of a sort (.oct). > Regarding the rpmlint warnings: > > Is the obsolete really necessary? (It is a genuine question and I accept your > answer). It just seems strange to see this for a package that has almost two > years. yes, to provide an upgrade path from octave-forge in F14. > With respect to the "dangerous-command-in-%preun" I think that this is a false > positive so it can be ignored (unless I am missing something obvious). Well, there is an rm in the %octave_pkg_preun macro: %octave_pkg_preun \ rm %{octpkgdir}/packinfo/on_uninstall.m \ if [ -e %{octpkgdir}/packinfo/on_uninstall.m.orig ]; then \ mv %{octpkgdir}/packinfo/on_uninstall.m.orig %{octpkgdir}/packinfo/on_uninstall.m \ cd %{octpkgdir}/packinfo \ %octave_cmd l=pkg('list');on_uninstall(l{cellfun(@(x)strcmp(x.name,'%{octpkg}'),l)}); \ fi \ %{nil} Looking closer, I think I can replace the rm with a mv -f. That seems to remove the rpmlint warning. > What should we do with the final provides? Probably we need to rework the > provides filter for octave packages. What do you think? I think it is fine as is. May actually help with octave package dependencies. Filtering leads to other rpm issues too. -- 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