[Bug 710101] Review Request: mingw-libjpeg-turbo - MinGW Windows Libjpeg-turbo library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=710101

--- Comment #6 from Kalev Lember <kalev@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2011-06-02 15:22:14 EDT ---
Fedora review mingw-libjpeg-turbo-1.1.1-2.fc15.src.rpm 2011-06-02

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint mingw32-libjpeg-turbo \
          mingw32-libjpeg-turbo-static \
          mingw32-libjpeg-turbo-debuginfo \
          mingw-libjpeg-turbo-1.1.1-2.fc16.src.rpm
mingw32-libjpeg-turbo-static.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libturbojpeg.a
mingw32-libjpeg-turbo-static.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libjpeg.a
mingw32-libjpeg-turbo-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-libjpeg-turbo-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw-libjpeg-turbo.src:94: W: macro-in-comment %{_mingw32_libdir}
mingw-libjpeg-turbo.src:96: W: macro-in-comment %{_mingw32_libdir}
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 3 warnings.

! rpmlint doesn't like the commented out lines in %files section; I guess
  these can be safely removed to make rpmlint happy. Other errors and
  warnings are harmless.
+ The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the package base name
+ 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 spec file matches the actual license
+ The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding
  native Fedora package
! The package doesn't contain the license files
  (LICENSE.txt and LGPL.txt)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
  03b9c1406c7bfdc204313c2917ce6962  libjpeg-turbo-1.1.1.tar.gz
  03b9c1406c7bfdc204313c2917ce6962  Download/libjpeg-turbo-1.1.1.tar.gz
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly
n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The 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
n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8


Issues:
! Would be nice to clean up the rpmlint warnings about macro-in-comment.
! License files (LICENSE.txt and LGPL.txt) are not packaged up; I guess
  the README file that's duplicating native docs can be removed.
! Obsoletes and Provides should be defined for the mingw32- binary subpackage,
  not for the source package.

-- 
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


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]