[Bug 679060] Review Request: mingw32-antlr - MinGW Windows ANTLR C++ run-time 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=679060

Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> 2011-05-02 04:37:34 EDT ---
Fedora review mingw32-antlr-2.7.7-4.fc14.src.rpm 2011-05-02

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint mingw32-antlr \
          mingw32-antlr-static \
          mingw32-antlr-debuginfo-2.7.7-4.fc15.noarch.rpm \
          mingw32-antlr-2.7.7-4.fc15.src.rpm
mingw32-antlr.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers ->
parser, parses, parers
mingw32-antlr.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary i686-pc-mingw32-antlr-config
mingw32-antlr-static.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libantlr2.a
mingw32-antlr-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-antlr-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw32-antlr.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser,
parses, parers
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.

All these rpmlint warnings and errors are harmless and can be ignored.

+ rpmlint output
+ The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the package base name
+ 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 spec file matches the actual license
+ The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding
  native Fedora package
+ The package contains the license file (LICENSE.txt)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
  01cc9a2a454dd33dcd8c856ec89af090  antlr-2.7.7.tar.gz
  01cc9a2a454dd33dcd8c856ec89af090  Download/antlr-2.7.7.tar.gz
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly
n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun
+ Package does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ Permissions are properly set
+ Consistent use of macros
+ The 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
n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package
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
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8

If you want to, you can also remove the %clean section and the %defattr lines
which are also no longer required in current Fedora releases, before importing
the package to git:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#.25clean
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#File_Permissions

Looks good. APPROVED

-- 
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.