| What | Removed | Added |
|---|---|---|
| Flags | fedora-review? | fedora-review+ |
Comment # 3
from Hans de Goede
Full review done: Good: -------- - rpmlint checks return: mingw32-libusbx-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw32-libusbx-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-libusbx-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw64-libusbx-static.noarch: W: no-documentation ^^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 - 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: --------------- - rpmlint checks return: mingw-libusbx.src: W: strange-permission libusbx-1.0.11.tar.bz2 0640L Please fix before import - rpmlint checks return: mingw32-libusbx.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/mingw32-libusbx-1.0.11/ChangeLog mingw64-libusbx.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/mingw64-libusbx-1.0.11/ChangeLog The ChangeLog file is not that interesting anyways, it says: "For the latest change log, please visit: http://libusbx.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=libusbx/libusbx;a=log" So I suggest just dropping it. - 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 - Does not own all directories that it creates! The mingw32-* and mingw64-* packages install files under /usr/i686-w64-mingw32 resp /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32 And subdirs under these dirs which no packages own, therefor the mingw32-* and mingw64-* packages should have a Requires on mingw32-filesystem resp mingw64-filesystem. This seems to be an oversight in the mingw packaging guidelines which are missing these requires in their example specfile too. Can you please discuss this with the other mingw packaging folks? 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