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=527704 Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-15 11:06:30 EDT --- Ok, assuming that we'll come to an agreement on whether we should include or exclude these apps, here is my REVIEW: +/- rpmlint is not silent: [petro@Workplace ~]$ rpmlint Desktop/mingw32-proj-4.6.1-3.fc11.noarch.rpm mingw32-proj.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libproj.dll.a mingw32-proj.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/projects.h mingw32-proj.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nad_list.h mingw32-proj.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libproj.dll.a mingw32-proj.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libproj.dll.a mingw32-proj.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/org_proj4_Projections.h mingw32-proj.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/proj_api.h mingw32-proj.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. [petro@Workplace ~]$ Fortunately, all these messages are common in case of mingw32-related package and may be safely ignored. + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec . + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines . + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc. + The spec file is written in American English (note, that I'm not a native American English speaker). + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source. [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum proj-4.6.1.tar.gz* 76d174edd4fdb4c49c1c0ed8308a469216c01e7177a4510b1b303ef3c5f97b47 proj-4.6.1.tar.gz 76d174edd4fdb4c49c1c0ed8308a469216c01e7177a4510b1b303ef3c5f97b47 proj-4.6.1.tar.gz.1 [petro@Sulaco SOURCES]$ + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji logs above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. +/- Permissions on files were set properly + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package must consistently use macros. + The package contains code, or permissable content. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + Header files must be in a -devel package, but mingw32 packages allowed to do so. + No static libraries. + No pkgconfig(.pc) files. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. + Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. Ok, I'm leaving the decision whether or not to include *.exe files to Dave's choice. I have no strong opinion here. Otherwise this package is APPROVED -- 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