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=818256 Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-10 10:17:30 EDT --- Full review done: Good: -------- - rpmlint checks return: mingw32-spice-glib.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency mingw32-glib2 mingw32-spice-glib.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86_64-w64-mingw32 mingw32-spice-gtk.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-spice-gtk-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw32-spice-gtk-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-spice-gtk3.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-spice-glib.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency mingw64-glib2 mingw64-spice-glib.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-w64-mingw32 mingw64-spice-gtk.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-spice-gtk-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw64-spice-gtk-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-spice-gtk3.noarch: W: no-documentation 10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings. ^^These are all expected for mingw packages, so no problem here ^^ - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (LGPLv2+) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - locales properly handled - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Needs-work: ----------------- - you remove all .la files, but non of the other mingw packages I have seen do that, so it is probably better to not do that. Note, this seems something which is under discussion: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Packaging_issues But as said I believe for now it is best to just keep the .la files there. -- 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