[Bug 467420] Review Request: mingw32-gtk2 - MinGW Windows Gtk2 library

[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=467420


Michel Alexandre Salim <michel.sylvan at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+,
                   |                            |needinfo?(rjones at redhat.com
                   |                            |)




--- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel.sylvan at gmail.com>  2009-02-09 10:49:38 EDT ---
MUST:

? rpmlint: .defs marked executable
I went back to my mingw23-libgcrypt review:
  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467403

and it looks like you ended up removing the *.def files altogether. That
definitely fixes rpmlint, and I just tried rebuilding gtk-vnc after removing
mingw32-gtk2's *.defs, so MinGW does not need those *.def files, but wouldn't
someone trying to compile against libgcrypt on Windows need them?

What I don't know is whether they absolutely must have +x permissions. I'm
guessing that chmod -x'ing them should be safe, after all, they are just header
files. Should they be readded to libgcrypt?


+ package name
+ spec file name
+ package guideline-compliant
+ license complies with guidelines
+ license field accurate
+ license file not deleted
+ spec in US English
+ spec legible
+ source matches upstream
+ builds under >= 1 archs, others excluded
+ build dependencies complete
+ locales handled using %find_lang, no %{_datadir}/locale

N/A library -> ldconfig
N/A relocatable: give reason

+ own all directories
+ no dupes in %files
+ permission
+ %clean RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ macros used consistently
+ Package contains code

N/A large docs => -doc
N/A doc not runtime dependent

N/A headers in -devel
N/A static in -static

+   if contains *.pc, req pkgconfig
N/A if libfiles are suffixed, the non-suffixed goes to devel
N/A devel requires versioned base package

N/A desktop file uses desktop-file-install
+   clean buildroot before install
+   filenames UTF-8

SHOULD
-   desc and summary contain translations if available
?   package build in mock on all architectures
    Not tested -- not all dependencies in Fedora yet, thus no Koji
+   package functioned as described
+   scriplets are sane
N/A other subpackages should require versioned base
+   if main pkg is development-wise, pkgconfig can go in main package
+   require package not files

-- 
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.