Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180 --- Comment #4 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Thanks, Greg, for your review! (In reply to comment #2) > I'm further curious, if there is a version 2+ out, why are you packaging > this version, which is running on 3 years old now? Why is mingw-lcms2 not > sufficient? Both versions are not fully API compatible. See for example http://littlecms2.blogspot.ch/search?updated-max=2010-02-15T17:31:00Z&max-results=12&start=12&by-date=false This is presumably why we have both versions as native libraries as well. I was packaging poppler for mingw, and poppler still wants lcms v1. (In reply to comment #3) > -rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build > produces. The output should be posted in the review. > mingw32-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources > mingw64-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources In my opinion these should be waved. mingw debuginfo packages never include the source code (see for example mingw32-libtiff-debuginfo-3.9.5-7.fc17.noarch.rpm); also, the way this package generates the debuginfo subpackage is exactly as per the fesco approved mingw packaging guidelines https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW?rd=Packaging/MinGW#Manpages_and_info_files > mingw32-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation > mingw64-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation Again, these should IMO be waved, as the mingw packaging guidelines requires documentation which is just a duplicate of the documentation of the native package not to be packaged. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW?rd=Packaging/MinGW#Manpages_and_info_files > Additional notes: > 1) Remove the 'rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}' as that is no longer necessary. done > 2) Remove the %clean section as that is no longer necessary. done > 3) The %defattr lines can be removed as well, they're now unnecessary. done > 4) Lines beginning with 'Group:' are superfluous and can be removed I can do this if you really absolutely require this, but I find it ugly when rpm -qi reports "Group: Unspecified"; also, other mingw packages also provide a group name > 5) The 'BuildRoot:' line should be removed done > 6) Is there a reason you are relying on mingw*-filesystem >= 68 instead of a > newer version? removed; I think this is a cut&paste artifact > 7) The two lines that define the globals mingw_build_win{32,64} can be > safely deleted. done -- 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