[Bug 166253] Review Request: perl-Gtk2-GladeXML

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Sep 14 23:57:13 UTC 2005

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: perl-Gtk2-GladeXML


------- Additional Comments From jspaleta at gmail.com  2005-09-14 19:56 EST -------
> I was the one who asked Gavin to add the above line to the specfile (see
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2005-July/msg00567.html).
> Some of of us have been following the policy of disabling the executable bit
> bit for every documentation file.  The main reason is that it avoids pulling
> new requirments as explained by Paul in comment #2 (rpm still pulls requirements
> from perl modules though).  The other reason is more of personnal taste - we
> don't like to see runnable files shipped as documentation.

in this case.. and im sure its very much a special case..there are no extra deps
pulled in. But I'm also not seeing a check and removal of executable bits
documented in the living wiki documentation of the review process. Sorry I
missed the discussion thread in the extras list where concensous was reached.
Can you get this incorporated as a reviewer SHOULD check or maybe a blurb about
non-executable examples in the packaging guidelines for "Documentation."  I
don't have a strong opinion either way, so I just went with my gut.  But now i
know...and knowing is half the battle. Yo Joe!

I still think it might be a good idea to have boilerplate fedora readme saying
that the examples have been delibrately made un-executable since its a change
from upstream source behavior.


Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list