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