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: quesa - OSS implementation of QuickDraw 3D https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=251828 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-18 23:47 EST ------- Odd, mow I'm seeing more spurious-executable-perm complaints on the following files: /usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/Writers/3DMF/E3FFW_3DMFBin_Register.c /usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/Readers/3DMF/E3FFR_3DMF_Bin.h /usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/Writers/3DMF/E3FFW_3DMFBin_Geometry.c /usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/Writers/3DMF/E3FFW_3DMFBin_Writer.c /usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/Readers/3DMF/E3FFR_3DMF.h /usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/E3IOFileFormat.c /usr/src/debug/quesa-1.8/Source/FileFormats/E3IOFileFormat.h I just change the chmod line you had in %prep to find Source/FileFormats -name '*.[ch]' -exec chmod a-x {} \; and those complaints all go away, leaving just quesa-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation which is not a problem. Since I only see one issue and the fix is trivial, I'll approve this package and you can fix it up when you check in. * source files match upstream: 3d14ed7deabc8245551bff72995bdbbcfc29a9402bdef6a2548461ae4ddc2a91 quesa-1.8.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * compiler flags are appropriate. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly * debuginfo package looks complete. X rpmlint has some valid complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: quesa-1.8-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm libquesa.so.0()(64bit) quesa = 1.8-1.fc9 = /sbin/ldconfig libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libX11.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libquesa.so.0()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) quesa-devel-1.8-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm quesa-devel = 1.8-1.fc9 = libquesa.so.0()(64bit) quesa = 1.8-1.fc9 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. I have no way to test this package. * shared libraries installed; ldconfig called properly and unversioned .so files are in the -devel package. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate (executable source files) * scriptlets are OK (ldconfig) * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * headers are in the debug package. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. APPROVED; just fix up those source file permissions. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review