[Bug 467260] Review Request: mingw32-filesystem - MinGW base filesystem and environment

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467260


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?, fedora-cvs-




--- Comment #8 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-10-28 16:30:57 EDT ---
Yes, that's what I was looking for.  Now we have a permanent explanation of why
a package with nothing but a few directories and shell scripts would seem to
provide the win32 kernel.

Now, down to the review.  rpmlint says:
  mingw32-filesystem.src:38: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw32(gdi32.dll)
  mingw32-filesystem.src:39: W: unversioned-explicit-provides 
   mingw32(kernel32.dll)
  mingw32-filesystem.src:40: W: unversioned-explicit-provides
mingw32(ole32.dll)
  mingw32-filesystem.src:41: W: unversioned-explicit-provides 
   mingw32(mscoree.dll)
  mingw32-filesystem.src:42: W: unversioned-explicit-provides 
   mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
  mingw32-filesystem.src:43: W: unversioned-explicit-provides 
   mingw32(user32.dll)
These should all be adequately covered by the added comment.

  mingw32-filesystem.src: W: strange-permission mingw32-find-provides.sh 0775
  mingw32-filesystem.src: W: strange-permission mingw32-find-requires.sh 0775
No idea why these are group writable in the srpm, but it doesn't really matter.

  mingw32-filesystem.noarch: E: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
Indeed, there are no binaries, just directories; that's quite OK for a
filesystem package.

  mingw32-filesystem.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32
Obviously that's intended and accepted by the guidelines; it would be nice to
get rpmlint to accept this.  Could you file a ticket?

Otherwise, I have one remaining question about the two files placed in
/etc/profile.d: what would be set here? Is the point to eventually add things
to $PATH or set some specific environment variables?  Because it seems a bit
odd to add two files there which contain nothing but comments.

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