Package maintainers -- want test results by mail?
a.badger at gmail.com
Wed Jun 2 18:46:38 UTC 2010
On Wed, Jun 02, 2010 at 07:59:22PM +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?
I think that was a list of three ways to fix the issue.
As for not fixing the issue at all, that is probably a valid fourth option in
most cases where python-sitelib is involved.
What follows is just how I handle things, not how they must be handled:
I like to get rid of the #! lines where the file in question is never going
to be run as a script (It's just classes and functions, there's nothing in
it to actually run and do anything). I submit these upstream and they are
generally merged quickly.
Marking as executable can be done when the module could be run as a script
by a knowledgable user (one that knows that
/usr/ib/python2.6/site-packages/foo/profiler.py can also be invoked from the
command line) to do something they want.
When the shebang is to allow running some sort of unittest I generally just
leave it alone (the end user won't want to run it and upstream does want to
run the code when they're testing).
I generally try to remove as many rpmlint warnings as I can so that I can
more plainly tell when something actually has regressed but in most cases
involving python-sitelib, you don't gain anything from dealing with this
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100602/c07c135d/attachment.bin
More information about the devel