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=492130 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? Bug 492130 depends on bug 492125, which changed state. Bug 492125 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-pangomm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for Pango https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492125 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-18 11:28:09 EDT --- Fedora review mingw32-gtkmm24-2.15.0-1.fc11.src.rpm 2009-04-18 * OK ! needs attention * rpmlint output Only expected Errors/Warnings from a mingw package * Package is named according to Fedora mingw packaging guidelines * Spec file is named as the package * Package follows the Fedora mingw packaging guidelines * The stated license (LGPLv2+) is a Fedora approved license * The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding Fedora package * The package contains the license file (COPYING) which is LGPL v2.1 ! The package also includes another license file (COPYING.tools) from the source tarball which is the GPL2 license. Is any of the components in the package released under this license? If there are components in the package released under this license the License tag should reflect this. If there are no components in the package released under this license this file shouldn't be in the package. The corresponding native Fedora package gtkmm24 doesn't seem to package this file. * The spec file is written in legible English * Sources matches upstream b1b3e8efa33425bf91ba49922fab13ac gtkmm-2.15.0.tar.bz2 b1b3e8efa33425bf91ba49922fab13ac SRPM/gtkmm-2.15.0.tar.bz2 ! Accoding to guidelines the version should match the version of the corresponding Fedora package. The current version of the native package (in F11 and devel) is 2.16.0. * Package builds in mock (Fedora 10). ! Since the documentation is deleted anyway after the build, wouldn't it make sense to pass --disable-doc to configure so that it is not built in the first place? * BuildRequires look sane * Owns the directories it creates * No duplicate files * %files has %defattr * %clean clears %buildroot * Specfile uses macros consistently * Package does not own other's directories * %install clears %buildroot * Installed filenames are valid UTF8 -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review