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=499983 Thomas Sailer <t.sailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |t.sailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-22 06:54:53 EDT --- Fedora review http://www.ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw32-libsoup-2.26.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 2009-05-22 Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1370211 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint mingw32-libsoup* mingw32-libsoup.src: W: invalid-license LPLv2 mingw32-libsoup.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 43, tab: line 7) mingw32-libsoup.noarch: W: invalid-license LPLv2 mingw32-libsoup.src: W: invalid-license LPLv2 mingw32-libsoup.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 43, tab: line 7) mingw32-libsoup.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 43, tab: line 7) mingw32-libsoup-static.noarch: W: invalid-license LPLv2 mingw32-libsoup-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libsoup-2.4.a mingw32-libsoup-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. As per Packaging/MinGW, these errors can be ignored, except for the mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs. + OK ! needs attention + rpmlint output + Package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + Specfile name matches the package base name + Package follows the Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines version seems to be slightly ahead of native (1.1 vs. 1.0) please try to stick to the native version + License meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora LGPLv2 ! License matches the actual package license Presumably "LPLv2" is a typo, should be "LGPLv2" It is also the same as in the corresponding Fedora libsoup package + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible ! Please fix the tabs-vs-spaces issue + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm 94c0495dc8bf213709bdb175ab224c7e libsoup-2.26.1.tar.bz2 94c0495dc8bf213709bdb175ab224c7e x/libsoup-2.26.1.tar.bz2 n/a Package builds in mock n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + Does not use Prefix: /usr + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + %files has %defattr + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Consistent use of macros + Package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel Fedora MinGW guidelines allow headers in main package + Static libraries should be in -static + Packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files Fedora MinGW guidelines allow .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Filenames must be valid UTF-8 ! use %global instead of %define -- 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