Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961223
Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |limburgher(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> ---
! rpmlint checks return:
Clean for spec and SRPM.
RPMs:
The package should be of the noarch architecture because it doesn't contain
any binaries.
ocrfeeder.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ocrfeeder/odf/odfmanifest.py 0644L
/usr/bin/python
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
ocrfeeder.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ocrfeeder/odf/manifest.py 0644L
/usr/bin/python
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
ocrfeeder.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ocrfeeder/odf/odf2xhtml.py 0644L
/usr/bin/python
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
ocrfeeder.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ocrfeeder/odf/userfield.py 0644L
/usr/bin/python
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
ocrfeeder.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ocrfeeder/odf/element.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
ocrfeeder.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ocrfeeder/odf/thumbnail.py 0644L
/usr/bin/python
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
ocrfeeder.x86_64: E: non-executable-script
/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/ocrfeeder/odf/load.py 0644L /usr/bin/python
This text file contains a shebang or is located in a path dedicated for
executables, but lacks the executable bits and cannot thus be executed. If
the file is meant to be an executable script, add the executable bits,
otherwise remove the shebang or move the file elsewhere.
ocrfeeder.x86_64: E: invalid-desktopfile
/usr/share/applications/ocrfeeder.desktop value "0.5" for key
"Version" in
group "Desktop Entry" is not a known version
.desktop file is not valid, check with desktop-file-validate
ocrfeeder-debuginfo.x86_64: E: empty-debuginfo-package
This debuginfo package contains no files. This is often a sign of binaries
being unexpectedly stripped too early during the build, rpmbuild not being
able to strip the binaries, the package actually being a noarch one but
erratically packaged as arch dependent, or something else. Verify what the
case is, and if there's no way to produce useful debuginfo out of it, disable
creation of the debuginfo package.
These should all be fixed. debuginfo will be fixed if the package is made
noarch.
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
! license listed as GPLv3, should be GPLv3+ and LGPLv2+
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR ##### I'll verify this after the other things are fixed.
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sapMALr1yL&a=cc_unsubscribe