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=527706 Bug 527706 depends on bug 527704, which changed state. Bug 527704 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-proj - MinGW port of the proj cartographic projection library package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527704 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |ERRATA --- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-05 09:58:03 EDT --- Koji scratchbuild for F-11 (success): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1789938 Koji scratchbuild for F-12 (success): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1789940 Koji scratchbuild for EL-5 (FAILURE!): http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1789943 Review: + rpmlint is silent +/- The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines, except one small issue in the versioning scheme - since you're packaging pre-release (from VCS), then "Release" field should start from 0. E.g. Release: 0.1.svn1664%{?dist} + 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, should be included in %doc, but, unfortunately, upstream does not ship this file in their VCS. This issue was reported upstream (see comments above) and may be ignoired here. + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. +/- The sources used to build the package, must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. However, since this is a pre-release and no tarball was provided by upstream, the only way to check the integrity of the sources, is to make diff against freshly checked out VCS tree. So, please, provide the instructions in comments somewhere within spec-file on how to create this checkout. See this spec, for example: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/superiotool/devel/superiotool.spec?view=markup +/- The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Unfortunately, the package failed to build on EL-5 due to missing dependencies on mingw32-{libtiff|proj}. Please, keep this in mind, then you'll requesting cvs branches. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + 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 are set properly. + The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. - The package must NOT own files or directories already owned by other packages. Unfortunately, it owns %{_mingw32_libdir}/pkgconfig which is already owned by mingw32-filesystem. + At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8 Please, fixissues noted above, and I'll continue. -- 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