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=502387 Thomas Sailer <t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Thomas Sailer <t.sai...@alumni.ethz.ch> 2009-05-26 06:13:51 EDT --- Fedora review http://www.ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw32-libgnurx-2.5.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 2009-05-26 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint * mingw32-hunspell.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libparsers.a mingw32-hunspell-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libhunspell-1.2.a mingw32-hunspell-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. As per Packaging/MinGW, these errors can be ignored. + OK ! needs attention + rpmlint output + Package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + Specfile name matches the package base name + Package follows the Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines version seems to be slightly ahead of native (1.1 vs. 1.0) please try to stick to the native version + License meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ or MPLv1.1 + License matches the actual package license + The package contains the license file (COPYING,COPYING.LGPL,COPYING.MPL) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible - IMO, you don't need to include the whole history of the native package in %changelog, just a reference that it was derived from the native package would be sufficient + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm 1177af54a09e320d2c24015f29c3a93e hunspell-1.2.8.tar.gz 1177af54a09e320d2c24015f29c3a93e x/hunspell-1.2.8.tar.gz n/a Package builds in mock n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + Does not use Prefix: /usr + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + %files has %defattr + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Consistent use of macros + Package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel Fedora MinGW guidelines allow headers in main package + Static libraries should be in -static + Packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files Fedora MinGW guidelines allow .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Filenames must be valid UTF-8 Have you tried to upstream your patches? Especially hunspell-build-dll.patch seems like very upstream-worthy. Also, what is the failure mode of AC_FUNC_MALLOC? I guess a bug report with autoconf would be in order. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review