[Bug 812659] Review Request: par - paragraph reformatter

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=812659

--- Comment #6 from David Levine <par.packager@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-04-18 21:46:31 EDT ---
Spec URL: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~levine/par/par-1.52-4.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~levine/par/par-1.52-4.fc16.src.rpm

Thank you both for your comments.  I tried to address all, except:

1) I retained the %defattr(-,root,root,755) for now.  Without it,
/usr/share/doc/par-1.52/ is created with mode 2755.  rpmlint considers that an
error:

  par.i386: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/doc/par-1.52 02755L

2) I didn't use macros in the Source0 URL because the name and version parts of
its filename don't match the macro values (Par vs. par and 152 vs. 1.52).

3) And I restored the -s in the install of the binary.  The vast majority of
binaries on my vanilla Fedora 16 are stripped, so I'm not sure why this one
shouldn't be.  (Unless that changes with 17 or 18?)


And I'm not sure that renaming the executable is the best approach here.  It
technically doesn't satisfy Packaging:Conflicts because upstream isn't doing
the renaming.  And the other two choices under Binary_Name_Conflicts are for
cases with the same or similar functionality, so they don't apply.

Is there any precedent for installing a conflicting binary someplace other than
/usr/bin/?  For my immediate use case, that would be fine because the binary is
called by another, which must be informed of the path.  If not an option, any
other suggestions?  par dates from 1993 so I'd like to avoid changing its name.

rpmlint output:
par.i386: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) reformatter -> reformatted,
reformatting, reformatory
par.i386: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) fmt -> ft, mt, fit
par.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bodiless -> bodices
par.i386: W: invalid-license Par
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]