Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?
opensource at till.name
Wed Jun 2 17:59:22 UTC 2010
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 10:46:51AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 19:41 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> > And I doubt that python scripts in below
> > /usr/lib/python2.6/site-packages usually need to be executable. Since
> > yum works without any problems, these tons of errors are useless, too.
> > And they make it only harder to find real errors. I did not think more
> > about the other quoted rpmlint messages.
> It's complaining because the files have #! in them, likely to assist in
> self tests, but the files aren't marked as executable. That could
> actually be fixed upstream, either mark them as executable or remove the
I understand the rpmlint test, but I do not understand why this needs to
be handled upstream or why this is any problem at all. Are there
packages with executable files in the python-sitelib that need to be
executable or are used by users of the installed package as executables?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100602/c44f4cdf/attachment.bin
More information about the devel