[Bug 957346] Review Request: mingw-physfs - MinGW compiled physfs library to provide abstract access to various archives
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat May 4 21:40:24 UTC 2013
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957346
Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl
Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org |erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl> ---
$ rpmlint mingw-physfs.spec
mingw-physfs.spec:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab:
line 12)
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw-physfs-2.0.3-1.fc19.src.rpm
mingw-physfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem -> file
system, file-system, systemically
mingw-physfs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untrusted ->
entrusted, trusted, encrusted
mingw-physfs.src: E: description-line-too-long C MinGW compiled PhysicsFS, a
library to provide abstract access to various archives. It is
mingw-physfs.src:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line
12)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
$ rpmlint mingw32-physfs-2.0.3-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw32-physfs-static-2.0.3-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw64-physfs-2.0.3-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw64-physfs-static-2.0.3-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
mingw32-physfs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem ->
file system, file-system, systemically
mingw32-physfs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untrusted ->
entrusted, trusted, encrusted
mingw32-physfs.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C MinGW compiled PhysicsFS,
a library to provide abstract access to various archives. It is
mingw32-physfs.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-physfs-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-physfs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US filesystem ->
file system, file-system, systemically
mingw64-physfs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US untrusted ->
entrusted, trusted, encrusted
mingw64-physfs.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C MinGW compiled PhysicsFS,
a library to provide abstract access to various archives. It is
mingw64-physfs.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-physfs-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 8 warnings.
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-physfs
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw32(advapi32.dll)
mingw32-crt
mingw32-filesystem >= 83
mingw32(kernel32.dll)
mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll)
mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
mingw32(user32.dll)
mingw32(zlib1.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw64-physfs
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
mingw64(advapi32.dll)
mingw64-crt
mingw64-filesystem >= 83
mingw64(kernel32.dll)
mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
mingw64(user32.dll)
mingw64(zlib1.dll)
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw32-physfs-static
mingw32-physfs = 2.0.3-1.fc19
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --requires mingw64-physfs-static
mingw64-physfs = 2.0.3-1.fc19
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1
$ rpm --query --provides mingw32-physfs
mingw32-physfs = 2.0.3-1.fc19
mingw32(libphysfs.dll)
$ rpm --query --provides mingw64-physfs
mingw64-physfs = 2.0.3-1.fc19
mingw64(libphysfs.dll)
$ rpm --query --provides mingw32-physfs-static
mingw32-physfs-static = 2.0.3-1.fc19
$ rpm --query --provides mingw64-physfs-static
mingw64-physfs-static = 2.0.3-1.fc19
$ wget --quiet http://www.icculus.org/physfs/downloads/physfs-2.0.3.tar.bz2 -O
- | md5sum
c2c727a8a8deb623b521b52d0080f613 -
$ md5sum physfs-2.0.3.tar.bz2
c2c727a8a8deb623b521b52d0080f613 physfs-2.0.3.tar.bz2
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
[!] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines
[+] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-'
[+] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header}
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[+] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[+] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages
[+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch
[+] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section
[+] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4
to configure the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package
[+] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package
[+] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used
[+] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated
[+] Libtool .la files are not bundled
[+] .def files are not bundled
[+] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled
[+] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
[!] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
The following rpmlint errors/warnings need to be fixed:
* mingw-physfs.spec:12: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
* mingw-physfs.src: E: description-line-too-long
* mingw32-physfs.noarch: E: description-line-too-long
* mingw64-physfs.noarch: E: description-line-too-long
* mingw32-physfs.noarch: W: no-documentation
* mingw64-physfs.noarch: W: no-documentation
The mingw32 package seems to depend on libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll while the mingw64
package doesn't. I've also seen this on various other packages so we can
ignore this for now
A text file containing the license needs to bundled with both
the mingw32-physfs and mingw64-physfs subpackages and marked as %doc
The spec file still contains some informational comments from the example
spec file (about the use of static subpackages). These comments can be removed
Please add a comment about what the patch does and a reference to the
upstream bug tracker (if applicable).
Why is the 'rm -rf lzma' line commented out? If it isn't needed please remove
it
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bz0u3ySpqg&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the mingw
mailing list