[Bug 188207] Review Request: esdl - SDL bindings for Erlang

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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: esdl - SDL bindings for Erlang


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188207





------- Additional Comments From paul at city-fan.org  2006-04-25 10:53 EST -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> think is blocking is the errant provide of sdl_driver.so, although I'd like to
> know what's up with the debuginfo RPM.
> 
> rpmlint says:
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_util.c
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_audio.c
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_wrapper.c
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_glext.h
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_glu.c
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_gen.c
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_glext.c
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl.h
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_driver.c
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_spec.c
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_video.c
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_events.c
> E: erlang-esdl-debuginfo script-without-shellbang
> /usr/src/debug/esdl-0.95.0630/c_src/esdl_gl.c
> 
> I have no idea what it's on about here, or why RPM would choose to put copies of
> development files into the debuginfo RPM.  I'm not inclined to hold up inclusion
> of this package because of this, 

These can be fixed by removing the exec bit from the listed files using chmod in
%prep. There's no reason for .c or .h files to be executable...


-- 
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.