[Bug 502387] Review Request: mingw32-hunspell - MinGW Windows spell checker and morphological analyzer library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue May 26 10:13:54 UTC 2009
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=502387
Thomas Sailer <t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch> 2009-05-26 06:13:51 EDT ---
Fedora review
http://www.ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw32-libgnurx-2.5.1-1.fc11.src.rpm
2009-05-26
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint *
mingw32-hunspell.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libparsers.a
mingw32-hunspell-static.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libhunspell-1.2.a
mingw32-hunspell-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.
As per Packaging/MinGW, these errors can be ignored.
+ OK
! needs attention
+ rpmlint output
+ Package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
+ Specfile name matches the package base name
+ Package follows the Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
version seems to be slightly ahead of native (1.1 vs. 1.0) please try to
stick to the native version
+ License meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ or MPLv1.1
+ License matches the actual package license
+ The package contains the license file (COPYING,COPYING.LGPL,COPYING.MPL)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
- IMO, you don't need to include the whole history of the native package
in %changelog, just a reference that it was derived from the native package
would be sufficient
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm
1177af54a09e320d2c24015f29c3a93e hunspell-1.2.8.tar.gz
1177af54a09e320d2c24015f29c3a93e x/hunspell-1.2.8.tar.gz
n/a Package builds in mock
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %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
+ %files has %defattr
+ %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
n/a Header files should be in -devel
Fedora MinGW guidelines allow headers in main package
+ Static libraries should be in -static
+ Packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files
Fedora MinGW guidelines allow .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ Filenames must be valid UTF-8
Have you tried to upstream your patches?
Especially hunspell-build-dll.patch seems like very upstream-worthy.
Also, what is the failure mode of AC_FUNC_MALLOC? I guess a bug report with
autoconf would be in order.
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list