[Bug 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-libarchive-3.0.4-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-11-29 01:47:10 -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-libarchive-3.0.4-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-libarchive-3.0.4-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-libarchive-3.0.4-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-libarchive-3.0.4-3.fc17 -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- mingw-libarchive-3.0.4-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-libarchive-3.0.4-3.fc18 -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 Michael Cronenworth changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Michael Cronenworth --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: mingw-libarchive Short Description: MinGW package for libarchive Owners: mooninite Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 greg.helli...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- Approved. Settings fedora-review flag. -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #6 from Michael Cronenworth --- (In reply to comment #5) > The sub-package summaries still don't mention MinGW These issues aren't blockers. You're free to set +review and mention they can be fixed in the initial commit. Thanks. http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-libarchive.spec http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-libarchive-3.0.4-3.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #5 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #4) > > 2) Determine whether the secondary packages need a %doc line > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing Ah, there it is. Thanks! The sub-package summaries still don't mention MinGW, but everything else looks fine. The new rpmlint run looks clean, and ready to ship. mingw32-bsdcpio.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdcpio utility mingw32-bsdcpio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive -> lib archive, lib-archive, archive mingw32-bsdcpio.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-bsdtar.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdtar utility mingw32-bsdtar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive -> lib archive, lib-archive, archive mingw32-bsdtar.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpio -> CPI mingw32-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR, Ar, at mingw32-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shar -> share, shear, shard mingw32-libarchive-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw32-libarchive-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-bsdcpio.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdcpio utility mingw64-bsdcpio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive -> lib archive, lib-archive, archive mingw64-bsdcpio.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-bsdtar.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdtar utility mingw64-bsdtar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive -> lib archive, lib-archive, archive mingw64-bsdtar.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpio -> CPI mingw64-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR, Ar, at mingw64-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shar -> share, shear, shard mingw64-libarchive-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw64-libarchive-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw-libarchive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpio -> CPI mingw-libarchive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR, Ar, at mingw-libarchive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shar -> share, shear, shard -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #4 from Michael Cronenworth --- (In reply to comment #3) > So it looks like just a few things: > 1) Add "MinGW build.." to the summaries Fixed. > 2) Determine whether the secondary packages need a %doc line http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing > 3) Fix the upstream source URL. Fixed. > Lines that begin with 'Group:' are superflous, as Fedora makes no use of > them. They can be deleted from your spec file. Removed. > There are also a few other files that might be potential %doc files that > you're not including. For instance, you expressly convert NEWS from Latin1 > to UTF-8, but then you don't include it in the %doc line. Why is that? > README is also a potential for inclusion, I would suppose. Copy-pasta from the native spec. I've removed NEWS, but added README. We don't include most documentation that can be found in the native package. > This is my first official review as a packager, so bear with me. Kalev is my > mentor, so we can inquire of him regarding anything uncertain. Thanks. http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-libarchive.spec http://michael.cronenworth.com/RPMS/mingw-libarchive-3.0.4-2.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388
greg.helli...@gmail.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||greg.helli...@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from greg.helli...@gmail.com ---
Now that I'm allowed to do these officially. Items marked + are good, and those
marked - have issues.
+rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces.
The output should be posted in the review.
mingw32-bsdcpio.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdcpio utility
mingw32-bsdcpio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive ->
lib archive, lib-archive, archive
mingw32-bsdcpio.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-bsdtar.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdtar utility
mingw32-bsdtar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive ->
lib archive, lib-archive, archive
mingw32-bsdtar.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpio -> CPI
mingw32-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR,
Ar, at
mingw32-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shar ->
share, shear, shard
mingw32-libarchive-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw32-libarchive-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-bsdcpio.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdcpio utility
mingw64-bsdcpio.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive ->
lib archive, lib-archive, archive
mingw64-bsdcpio.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-bsdtar.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsdtar utility
mingw64-bsdtar.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libarchive ->
lib archive, lib-archive, archive
mingw64-bsdtar.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpio -> CPI
mingw64-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR,
Ar, at
mingw64-libarchive.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shar ->
share, shear, shard
mingw64-libarchive-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-libarchive-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw-libarchive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cpio -> CPI
mingw-libarchive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ar -> AR, Ar, at
mingw-libarchive.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shar -> share,
shear, shard
mingw-libarchive.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://libarchive.googlecode.com/files/libarchive-3.0.4.tar.gz HTTP Error 404:
Not Found
It's been suggested to me that summaries for mingw packages begin with the
string "MinGW build of...". That will conform better with other MinGW packages
and eliminate lots of those warnings. I don't know if the %doc line is
necessary for every package or not - but having it there would quiet those
warnings as well.
+The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
+The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
+The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
+The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
-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.
!! This is included in each of the base library builds, but not in the binary
builds. I'm not sure if that's an issue or not.
+The spec file must be written in American English.
+The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
-The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is
used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
!! The URL has changed to distribute off of github.com. The address should now
reflect
https://github.com/downloads/libarchive/libarchive/libarchive-3.0.4.tar.gz
The hashes map between the one you provided and the upstream I linked.
+The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture. (I tested x86_64 on f17)
+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.
+All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusi
[Bug 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 Erik van Pienbroek changed: What|Removed |Added CC||erik-fed...@vanpienbroek.nl --- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek --- Hey Michael, The _mkgmtime64 on WinXP issue should be resolved with the mingw-headers/mingw-crt which is currently in F18-updates-testing -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 --- Comment #1 from Michael Cronenworth --- Testing note: Libarchive uses "secure" CRT calls (_s suffix) that were implemented in MinGW-w64 in August 2012. The CRT in Fedora is a snapshot from July 2012. Libarchive also calls _mkgmtime64 that does not seem to be supported in MinGW/Windows XP. You can only run the resulting library in Windows 7 or higher. I made a patch againsg libarchive so that libarchive could be run on XP, but I will need to test it before I consider applying it here. -- 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 830388] Review Request: mingw-libarchive - MinGW package for libarchive
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830388 Michael Cronenworth changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-mingw@lists.fedorapr ||oject.org Depends On||830387 -- 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
