[Bug 529548] Review Request: mingw32-libogg - MinGW build of the libogg bitstream 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=529548





--- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-11-26 04:13:03 EDT ---
+ rpmlint is silent

[petro at Sulaco SPECS]$ rpmlint
../RPMS/noarch/mingw32-libogg-1.1.4-3.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, except I don't see any reasons
for uysing %defattr(0644,roor,root,0755) instead of %defattr(-,roor,root,-).
Could you, please, comment this?

+ 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.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ 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 libogg-1.1.4.tar.gz*
9354c183fd88417c2860778b60b7896c9487d8f6e58b9fec3fdbf971142ce103 
libogg-1.1.4.tar.gz
9354c183fd88417c2860778b60b7896c9487d8f6e58b9fec3fdbf971142ce103 
libogg-1.1.4.tar.gz.1
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ 

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture (ppc).
+ 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 need to specifically handle pkgconfig(.pc) files for mingw32
(mingw32-filesystem already contains %{_mingw32_libdir}/pkgconfig directory).
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 not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Please, comment/correct %defattr 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.