Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467397 Adam Tkac <at...@redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Adam Tkac <at...@redhat.com> 2009-01-13 09:33:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > I should add about the 'spurious-executable-perm' warning: > libtool / gcc add executable permissions when they generate > these files. In other words, this is not something that we > are adding, but something that the tools are doing. > > It has to be said that we don't really understand why the > tools do this, but at the same time we are loathed to change > any details of the linking process since at the moment it works, > but in the past it has proven quite fragile in that seemingly > insignificant changes have broken things. Well, I don't see any reason to have *dll.a files with executable perms but if it is created automatically leave it as is. Review: source files match upstream: YES package meets naming and versioning guidelines: YES specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently: YES dist tag is present: YES build root is correct: YES license field matches the actual license: YES license is open source-compatible: YES latest version is being packaged: YES BuildRequires are proper: YES compiler flags are appropriate: YES %clean is present: YES package builds in mock (Rawhide/x86_64): YES rpmlint is silent: no, but warnings/errors are ok for mingw* package final provides and requires look sane: YES owns the directories it creates: YES doesn't own any directories it shouldn't: YES no duplicates in %files: YES file permissions are appropriate: well, as written in comment #4 it's ok code, not content: YES => reviewed -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
