| What | Removed | Added |
|---|---|---|
| Status | NEW | ASSIGNED |
| Assignee | nobody@fedoraproject.org | hdegoede@redhat.com |
| Flags | fedora-review+ |
Comment # 1
from Hans de Goede
Full review done: Good: -------- - rpmlint checks return: mingw32-usbredir-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw32-usbredir-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-usbredir-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw64-usbredir-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 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 Should fix: --------------- - There is a "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in your %install, this is not needed with modern rpm versions, and should not be there unless you also manually specify a buildroot and have a manual %clean section - BuildRequires: mingw*-libusb1 likely needs to become BuildRequires: mingw*-libusbx see the mingw-libusb1 review. Please fix both of these before building for the first time. No blockers -> Approved!
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