[Bug 549809] Review Request: mingw32-libzip - mingw32 port of libzip

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549809


Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |lemenkov at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |lemenkov at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-12-22 13:36:55 EDT ---
REVIEW:

+ rpmlint is silent

[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint ~/Desktop/mingw32-libzip-0.9-1.fc12.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
0 Upstream doesn't provide the file, containing the text of the license(s) for
the package.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum libzip-0.9.tar.gz*
b0d0a768f9ef8fef14683adade0b819549dd3e61b9a5bf8ab8a92e378d87a05f 
libzip-0.9.tar.gz
b0d0a768f9ef8fef14683adade0b819549dd3e61b9a5bf8ab8a92e378d87a05f 
libzip-0.9.tar.gz.1
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1886694

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No need to run ldconfig for mingw32 libraries.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No need to separate header files from main package for mingw32-related
package.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package for mingw32 packages, since they are intended for devel
entirely.
0 The mingw32 package may contain necessary .la libtool archives. This is not a
blocker.
0 Not a GUI application.

- The package DOES own files or directories already owned by other packages.
Please, instead of adding whole %{_mingw32_libdir}/ add only 

%{_mingw32_libdir}/libzip.dll.a
%{_mingw32_libdir}/pkgconfig/libzip.pc

+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.


So, please, fix the only issue with alread owned directories and I'll continue.

-- 
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.