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=804125 --- Comment #3 from Gianluca Sforna <gia...@gmail.com> 2012-04-13 11:45:55 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Perhaps spell cheminformatics out to chemical informatics (perhaps even > information science). used chemical informatics, despite I'm not really used to call it that way. > > > rdkit.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit > > /usr/lib64/libSmilesParse.so.1.2011.12.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 > > rdkit.x86_64: W: shared-lib-calls-exit > > /usr/lib64/libSLNParse.so.1.2011.12.1 exit@GLIBC_2.2.5 > > I'm not sure what you can do about these other then logging a ticket upstream > with the details on why this is bad. Already did it in the past, but it seems that comes from some code auto-generated during build. I will try to further investigate if you think this is a blocker > > rdkit-extras.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/RDKit/Contrib/M_Kossner/Frames.py 0644L /usr/bin/python > rdkit-extras.noarch: E: non-executable-script > /usr/share/RDKit/Projects/SDView4/SDView.py 0644L /usr/bin/env > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Fixed > > These you can correct with a simple snippet - either choose to make the files > executable (mind you: may trigger a "executable script in non-standard > location" type of warning or error), or remove the shebang (mind you: may > render the program disfunctional if it expects to be able to execute these > files through a shell-out). > > An example of finding those files: > > # Find files with a shebang that do not have executable permissions > for file in `find %{buildroot}/%{geminstdir} -type f ! -perm /a+x -name > "*.rb"`; do > [ ! -z "`head -n 1 $file | grep \"^#!/\"`" ] && chmod -v 755 $file > done > . > > > python-rdkit.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rdkit/sping/tests/testallps.py 0644L > > /usr/bin/env > > python-rdkit.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rdkit/utils/pydoc_local.py 0644L > > /usr/bin/env > > python-rdkit.x86_64: E: non-executable-script > > /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rdkit/sping/examples/formatted-strings.py > > 0644L /usr/bin/env > > Same as aforementioned; two options; make files executable or remove shebang. > > > python-rdkit.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address > > /usr/lib64/python2.7/site-packages/rdkit/sping/WX/pidWX.py > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 1 warnings. > > While an upstream bug, the fix is easy. The address should read: > > # You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License > # along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software > # Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA. So, sping is some (dead) 3rd party code that should be eventually splitted. For now, I think I will just remove it since it is used to draw chemical structures when the default backend (cairo) is not available. > /home/kanarip/devel/rpmbuild/RPMS/x86_64/rdkit-debuginfo-2011.12-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm > > rdkit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm > > /usr/src/debug/RDKit_2011_12_1/Code/RDBoost/python_streambuf.h > > rdkit-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spurious-executable-perm > > /usr/src/debug/RDKit_2011_12_1/Code/GraphMol/Wrap/ForwardSDMolSupplier.cpp > > Remove the executable permissions from these files please; > > # Fix anything executable that does not have a shebang > for file in `find %{buildroot}/%{_prefix}/src -type f -perm /a+x`; do > [ -z "`head -n 1 $file | grep \"^#!/\"`" ] && chmod -v 644 $file > done Fixed. Updated package with new upstream release at: http://giallu.fedorapeople.org/rdkit-2012.03-1.fc16.src.rpm -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
