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=673792 Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember@xxxxxxxxx> 2012-02-25 17:32:44 EST --- Fedora review of mingw-crt-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc18_cross.src.rpm 2012-02-25 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint output: $ rpmlint mingw-crt-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.src.rpm \ mingw32-crt-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.noarch.rpm \ mingw64-crt-2.0.999-0.4.trunk.20120224.fc16.noarch.rpm mingw-crt.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment mingw-crt.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment mingw32-crt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment mingw32-crt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment mingw64-crt.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment mingw64-crt.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment mingw64-crt.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libwsock32.a [snip, 1601 similar errors cut out for brevity] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1602 errors, 6 warnings. + The rpmlint errors / warnings are harmless and can be ignored + The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the base package 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 package contains the license files (COPYING DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER.PD) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum: 1223b8f402e1e6296c5b70d63b37d4b0 mingw-w64-src_20120224.tar.bz2 1223b8f402e1e6296c5b70d63b37d4b0 Download/mingw-w64-src_20120224.tar.bz2 + The package builds on primary architectures 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 Not applicable to MinGW packages. n/a Static libraries must be in -static n/a Development files must be in a -devel package Not applicable to MinGW packages. n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + Packages must not contain libtool .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Directory ownership sane + Filenames are valid UTF-8 + Proper Obsoletes / Provides for replacing mingw32-runtime Looks good. 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review