[Bug 195921] Review Request: sextractor

[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: sextractor


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195921


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink at leemhuis.info |tibbs at math.uh.edu
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  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.