Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?
jkeating at redhat.com
Wed Jun 2 18:31:44 UTC 2010
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 19:59 +0200, Till Maas wrote:
> 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
> > #!s.
> 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?
*shrug* I suppose it's worth checking with upstream over it. And
discussing whether that rpmlint rule should be removed in our build.
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100602/f06dd583/attachment.bin
More information about the devel