https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858078
--- Comment #9 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
I was able to fetch the 5.2.0 final source and build that with your linked spec
file above. I ran these checks on both the SRPM rc1 above and the final
versions, but I'm only posting the final versions.
$ rpmlint mingw-qt5-qtsvg.spec
mingw-qt5-qtsvg.spec:29: W: macro-in-comment %{qt_module}
mingw-qt5-qtsvg.spec:29: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev}
mingw-qt5-qtsvg.spec:29: W: macro-in-comment %{qt_module}
mingw-qt5-qtsvg.spec:29: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev}
mingw-qt5-qtsvg.spec: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sun
Jan 6 2014 Erik van Pienbroek <epien...@fedoraproject.org> - 5.2.0-1
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw-qt5-qtsvg-5.2.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
mingw-qt5-qtsvg.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{qt_module}
mingw-qt5-qtsvg.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev}
mingw-qt5-qtsvg.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{qt_module}
mingw-qt5-qtsvg.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev}
mingw-qt5-qtsvg.src: E: specfile-error warning: bogus date in %changelog: Sun
Jan 6 2014 Erik van Pienbroek <epien...@fedoraproject.org> - 5.2.0-1
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
$ rpmlint results_mingw-qt5-qtsvg/5.2.0/1.fc20/mingw{32,64}*rpm
mingw32-qt5-qtsvg.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-qt5-qtsvg-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-qt5-qtsvg.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-qt5-qtsvg-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpm -q --requires mingw32-qt5-qtsvg
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32(qt5core.dll)
mingw32(qt5gui.dll)
mingw32(qt5svg.dll)
mingw32(qt5widgets.dll)
mingw32(zlib1.dll)
mingw32-crt
mingw32-filesystem >= 95
mingw32-pkg-config
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm -q --requires mingw64-qt5-qtsvg
rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw64(kernel32.dll)
mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll)
mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
mingw64(qt5core.dll)
mingw64(qt5gui.dll)
mingw64(qt5svg.dll)
mingw64(qt5widgets.dll)
mingw64(zlib1.dll)
mingw64-crt
mingw64-filesystem >= 95
mingw64-pkg-config
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm -q --provides mingw32-qt5-qtsvg
mingw32-qt5-qtsvg = 5.2.0-1.fc20
mingw32(qt5svg.dll)
mingw32(qsvgicon.dll)
mingw32(qsvg.dll)
$ rpm -q --provides mingw64-qt5-qtsvg
mingw64-qt5-qtsvg = 5.2.0-1.fc20
mingw64(qt5svg.dll)
mingw64(qsvgicon.dll)
mingw64(qsvg.dll)
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
[!] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines
[+] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-'
[+] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header}
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[+] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[+] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages
[+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch
[+] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section
[+] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, %mingw_cmake_kde4
or %mingw_qmake_qt5 to configure the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package
[+] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used
[+] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated
[+] Libtool .la files are not bundled
[+] .def files are not bundled
[+] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
[+] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
It looks like you need to fix up the date in that update message to final, and
you are missing the doc files for this package. Everything else seems to be
fine.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
