[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mi...@limbasan.ro --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com 2010-10-25 07:15:08 EDT --- *** Bug 529548 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697 Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #7 from Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com 2010-07-14 12:03:59 EDT --- rawhide builds are 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697 Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|needinfo?(kra...@redhat.com | |) | --- Comment #3 from Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com 2010-07-13 05:35:45 EDT --- Oops, picked wrong package when copying the link. Actually both src and binary package are there. Uploaded new revision 2 packages and updates spec file to the same location: http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libogg/ Documentation is removed there as it is redundant with 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2010-07-13 06:41:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) Oops, picked wrong package when copying the link. Actually both src and binary package are there. Uploaded new revision 2 packages and updates spec file to the same location: http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libogg/ Documentation is removed there as it is redundant with the native package. Agreed. The updated package fixes the only issue I found in the main review. This package is APPROVED by rjones. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697 Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Gerd Hoffmann kra...@redhat.com 2010-07-13 07:02:57 EDT --- New Package CVS Request === Package Name: mingw32-libogg Short Description: The Ogg bitstream file format library Owners: kraxel Branches: InitialCC: -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697 --- Comment #6 from Tom spot Callaway tcall...@redhat.com 2010-07-13 11:41:29 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rjo...@redhat.com -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag||fedora-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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697 --- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2010-07-12 12:16:03 EDT --- That file is a binary RPM, not the SRPM. Nevertheless I reconstructed the SRPM from the spec file. rpmlint output: mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ogg - Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bitstream - bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ogg - Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstream - bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstreams - bit streams, bit-streams, bloodstreams Bogus as usual. mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-buildroot-tag mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-%clean-section I think these are all no longer required. mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ogg - Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bitstream - bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ogg - Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstream - bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstreams - bit streams, bit-streams, bloodstreams Bogus as above. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings. -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Depends on||454410(mingw32-gcc) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697 Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||needinfo?(kra...@redhat.com ||) -- 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 613697] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
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=613697
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjo...@redhat.com 2010-07-12 12:22:10
EDT ---
+ rpmlint output
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
BSD, and the native package is already in Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license
+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
tried it on x86-64, cross-compiled to i386
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
+ %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
%{_mingw32_docdir}/libogg-%{version} is not needed, or if
you want to include it, it must be marked %doc
+ %defattr line
n/a %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
+ header files should be in -devel
this rule is not applicable for mingw32-* packages
+ static libraries should be in -static
this rule is not applicable for mingw32-* packages
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ packages should not contain libtool .la files
this rule is not applicable for mingw32-* packages
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8
+ use %global instead of %define
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
- reviewer should build the package in mock
- the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin
Please fix the docdir thing mentioned above.
--
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.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
