[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
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: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-16 15:48 EST --- Package Change Request == Package Name: sextractor New Branches: EL-5 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
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: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-07-16 20:15 EST --- cvs done. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
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: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
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: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 04:18 EST --- About the files in /usr/share/sextractor: Two of them are suppose to be edited by the user: default.sex and default.param I agree that default.sex and default.param should go to %doc The rest of the files are convolution masks for optimal detection of objects in images and the neural network weights. These files are not supposed to be edited by the user. Should these files go to /etc? -- 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
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
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: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 08:52 EST --- Two of them are suppose to be edited by the user: default.sex and default.param I agree that default.sex and default.param should go to %doc Will the program look for them in any specific place, or do they go into the home directory or the current directory? Looking at the source code it seems like the latter, and it also looks like the program includes a hardcoded copy (in prefs.h) that it can dump on demand. So you're right, if the program won't look for them anywhere, they should be marked %doc. The rest of the files are convolution masks for optimal detection of objects in images and the neural network weights. These files are not supposed to be edited by the user. Should these files go to /etc? They seem fine in /usr/share. The point about /usr/share is that files must be arch-independent and not written to, in case /usr is shared between machines. -- 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
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
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: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 10:56 EST --- The *.conv files are simple ASCII, so I think I can leave them in /usr/share I have moved default.param and default.sex to %doc Additionally, I have solved the problem with src/fits/fitsconv.c The new spec and SRPM are here: http://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/sextractor.spec http://t-rex.fis.ucm.es/~spr/sextractor-2.4.4-2.fc5.src.rpm -- 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
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
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: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-20 19:39 EST --- Builds fine, rpmlint is silent and the permission on the errant source file is fixed. In addition, the sample configuration files are %doc. Everything looks good to me. APPROVED -- 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
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
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: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-19 13:50 EST --- wow, the name couldn't be worse I don't think. -- 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
[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor
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: sextractor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-19 23:47 EST --- It is indeed a humorous name, but that's what upstream chose. But did they have to choose sex for the executable? The jokes will be endless. The package builds fine in mock (development, x86_64) and rpmlint has this to say: E: sextractor-debuginfo script-without-shellbang /usr/src/debug/sextractor-2.4.4/src/fits/fitsconv.c This odd warning derives from the fact that src/fits/fitsconv.c is executable for some reason, and it keeps its permissions when copied into the -debuginfo package. You should chmod it in %prep to shut this up. Something I wonder about: There are a couple of files in /usr/share/sextractor which look like configuration files; are these actually used by the program? Are they supposed to be edit by the administrator? If so, they really should live in /etc and be marked as %config(noreplace). And if they're example defaults, they should go in with the rest of the documentation. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: 9f1389ae9229c65f0a6a0b264deb314f sextractor-2.4.4.tar.gz * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane; just provides sextractor = 2.4.4-1.fc6 and requires nothing but glibc. * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. X file permissions are appropriate (one source file is executable) * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- 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
