[Bug 851180] Review Request: mingw-lcms - MinGW Color Management System

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180

--- Comment #6 from greg.hellings@xxxxxxxxx ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> 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.
> 

Understandable. I feel the same crunch for some software I've been trying to
build.

> > -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
> 

Mea culpa. I should have marked that line as fine. Those warnings are
acceptable.

> > 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

It's not a requirement, as Kalev mentioned

> > 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

This needs to be minimally versioned to >= 95. You can set it higher if there
are necessary dependencies introduced in later versions, e.g. macros you use in
your spec file.

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]