[Bug 537897] Review Request: mingw32-openjpeg - mingw32 package for openjpeg
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=537897 Moritz Barsnick changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mor...@barsnick.net --- Comment #7 from Moritz Barsnick 2009-12-25 16:33:44 EDT --- Wow, I think rpmlint needs some new rules. This package's dscription is borked. See new bug #550532. -- 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
[Bug 537897] Review Request: mingw32-openjpeg - mingw32 package for openjpeg
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=537897 Adam Goode changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- 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
[Bug 537897] Review Request: mingw32-openjpeg - mingw32 package for openjpeg
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=537897 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-12-03 01:36:40 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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
[Bug 537897] Review Request: mingw32-openjpeg - mingw32 package for openjpeg
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=537897 Adam Goode changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Adam Goode 2009-11-30 10:43:12 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-openjpeg Short Description: mingw32 package for openjpeg Owners: agoode Branches: F-11 F-12 -- 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
[Bug 537897] Review Request: mingw32-openjpeg - mingw32 package for openjpeg
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=537897 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lemen...@gmail.com Flag||fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Peter Lemenkov 2009-11-25 05:04:52 EDT --- Ok, after the informal but thorough review from Stefan, someone should just say APPROVED. -- 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
[Bug 537897] Review Request: mingw32-openjpeg - mingw32 package for openjpeg
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=537897 --- Comment #3 from Adam Goode 2009-11-24 10:38:08 EDT --- This is the mingw32 version of a package. So we don't want to ship the documentation that is a duplicate of what is in the native package. -- 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
[Bug 537897] Review Request: mingw32-openjpeg - mingw32 package for openjpeg
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=537897 Peter Lemenkov changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lemen...@gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov 2009-11-24 09:33:42 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > BTW, shouldn't the file ChangeLog be included as %doc? In many cases - not necessary. The ChangeLog is always too exhaustive for the average users (our intended auditory) - very often it contains descriptions of almost every commit, so NEWS file with more simplified history would be far more valuable. > hope this helps, > Stefan Yes, indeed! You almost finished the Review. -- 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
[Bug 537897] Review Request: mingw32-openjpeg - mingw32 package for openjpeg
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=537897
Stefan Riemens changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||fgfs.ste...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Stefan Riemens 2009-11-17 15:25:39
EDT ---
Let's go for an informal review (I'm not yet sponsored, so I can't officially
approve a package)
rpmlint output:
mingw32-openjpeg.src: W: macro-in-%description %{_mingw32_description}
mingw32-openjpeg-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
This is fine
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guideline.
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
$ md5sum openjpeg*
f9a3ccfa91ac34b589e9bf7577ce8ff9 openjpeg_v1_3.tar.gz
f9a3ccfa91ac34b589e9bf7577ce8ff9 openjpeg_v1_3.tar.gz.orig
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
It builds fine in mock
OK: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
not applicable
OK: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
not applicable
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this
fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation
of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a
blocker.
not applicable
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present.
OK: Header files must be in a -devel package.
Mingw packaging guidelines explicitly allow header files in the main package
OK: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
No static libs are packaged
OK: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for
directory ownership and usability).
not applicable
OK: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
not applicable for mingw packages
OK: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base pa
