[Bug 171526] Review Request: wine - A Windows 16/32 bit emulator

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: wine -  A Windows 16/32 bit emulator


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=171526





------- Additional Comments From triad at df.lth.se  2005-12-31 19:13 EST -------
Formal review:

* Package naming OK.
* The spec file name matches the base package %{name}.
* Meets packaging guidelines.
* Package has a open source compliant license (LGPL).
* The License: field matches the actual license.
* License included with %doc tag.
* Spec file is written in American English.
* Spec file is readable (and very straight forward).
* Sources match upstream (same md5sum).
* Builds successfully on FC4 i386 and i386smp.
* Problems with 64bit builds solved by using 32bit RPM versions, if 
  ExcludeArch: tags are needed for this they will be imminent
  during package build.
* Build requirements seem fine now.
* Mulilingual stuff is handled internally by Wine. (No gettext.)
* ldconfig is properly called.
* Package does not support relocations.
* Wine owns the directories it creates (when %{_datadir}/fonts/wine/ is fixed)
* No duplicate files.
* Correct %clean section.
* Spec file uses apropriate macros.
* Package contains only permissible content.
* Separate -docs package created, even has its own spec file.
* Proper -devel package exists.
* Wine does not use pkgconfig so no .pc files.
* There are a lot of .so (no numbers) files in %_libdir/wine but
  this is acceptable in this case because these are actually win32
  DLL files and not usable by the dynamic link library loader as
  such. Also these do not have any matching .1.1 etc files.
* The POSIXish .so (no numbers) files are in the -devel package.
* -devel package requires base package, same for all subpackages
  actually.
* Libtool archives not included in any packages.
* .desktop files included for all WINE applications as far as
  the reviewer can see.
* .a files includes: %{_libdir}/wine/*.a is this really needed?

rpmlint runs:

wine-0.9.4-1 produce no messages.

wine-0.9.4-1.i386.rpm:
W: wine no-version-in-last-changelog
E: wine statically-linked-binary /usr/bin/wine-preloader
W: wine non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ld.so.conf.d/wine-32.conf
W: wine service-default-enabled /etc/rc.d/init.d/wine
E: wine subsys-not-used /etc/rc.d/init.d/wine
Both errors seem to be ignorable. Warnings are confused.

wine-tools-0.9.4-1.i386.rpm
W: wine-tools no-version-in-last-changelog
W: wine-tools no-documentation

wine-arts-0.9.4-1.i386.rpm
W: wine-arts no-version-in-last-changelog
W: wine-arts no-documentation

wine-esd-0.9.4-1.i386.rpm
W: wine-esd no-version-in-last-changelog
W: wine-esd no-documentation

wine-jack-0.9.4-1.i386.rpm
W: wine-jack no-version-in-last-changelog
W: wine-jack no-documentation

wine-nas-0.9.4-1.i386.rpm
W: wine-nas no-version-in-last-changelog
W: wine-nas no-documentation

wine-ldap-0.9.4-1.i386.rpm
W: wine-ldap no-version-in-last-changelog
W: wine-ldap no-documentation

wine-cms-0.9.4-1.i386.rpm
W: wine-cms no-version-in-last-changelog
W: wine-cms no-documentation

wine-twain-0.9.4-1.i386.rpm
W: wine-twain no-version-in-last-changelog
W: wine-twain no-documentation

wine-capi-0.9.4-1.i386.rpm
W: wine-capi no-version-in-last-changelog
W: wine-capi no-documentation

wine-devel-0.9.4-1.i386.rpm
W: wine-devel summary-ended-with-dot Wine development environment.
W: wine-devel no-version-in-last-changelog

Fix the summary problem with the -devel package.
Uncertain about what causes the "no-version-in-last-changelog" message.
The others seem OK. Documentation is elsewhere.

If these (small) things are fixed, we are very close to accepting.
Also the two last remarks made for this package by me should be
taken into account.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.