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=619799 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Beekhof <abeekhof@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-20 14:13:48 EDT --- As far as I can see, this package passes the review criteria for inclusion. Go ahead and request the CVS flag. rpmlint ../SPECS/mingw32-pcre.spec mock/*pcre* mingw32-pcre.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US mingw32-pcre-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Using https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499987 as a precedent, the Error is considered harmless MUST + rpmlint errors / warnings above are harmless and can be ignored. + Package is named according to the Fedora MinGW naming guidelines + Package follows the Fedora MinGW packaging guideliens + The stated license (BSD) is a Fedora approved license + The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding native Fedora package + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: 9524f0ff50b9093c02c81f911e41b066 pcre-8.10.tar.gz 9524f0ff50b9093c02c81f911e41b066 SOURCES/pcre-8.10.tar.gz + Package builds in koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane, except that BR pkgconfig is probably not needed. n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly + Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries + Does not use Prefix: /usr + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Consistent use of macros + Package contains 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 n/a Static libraries are in -static + Packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package 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 SHOULD: n/a If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it - The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available + The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock + The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures + The reviewer should test that the package functions as described n/a If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane n/a Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package + The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files - your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts Fedora MinGW guidelines indicate not to duplicate documentation found in Fedora native packages -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review