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: compat-erlang


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=194300


[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED]
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2006-06-06 22:03 EST -------
I don't see anything out of line with the original review.  I do see some
oddities which you probably want to clean up, though.

W: compat-erlang-doc wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/compat-erlang-doc-R10B/doc/highlights.html

Do you need to ship the docs for the compat package?  Anyone who wants to do
development should just install the main package.

A bunch of these:
W: compat-erlang manpage-not-gzipped /usr/lib64/erlangR10B/man/man3/win32reg.3

Again, I'd just dump the manpages.


E: compat-erlang non-executable-script
/usr/lib64/erlangR10B/erts-5.4.13/bin/start.src 0644

Not sure what this is.


E: compat-erlang non-readable
/usr/lib64/erlangR10B/lib/ssl-3.0.11/examples/certs/etc/otpCA/private/RAND 0660

Nor this.

The only other thing I see is the directory name; are you sure you don't want to
put in a dash or something?  There are plenty of directories in /usr/lib that
don't use a dash (expect5.43, python2.4, tk8.4) so it's surely not a blocker.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to