[Bug 673784] Rename Request: mingw32-filesystem -> mingw-filesystem - Cross compiler base filesystem and environment

[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=673784

Michael Cronenworth <mike at cchtml.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mike at cchtml.com
               Flag|                            |needinfo?(erik-fedora at vanpi
                   |                            |enbroek.nl)

--- Comment #23 from Michael Cronenworth <mike at cchtml.com> 2011-05-05 20:32:48 EDT ---
My first review. Go easy on me!

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint mingw-filesystem mingw-filesystem-scripts mingw32-filesystem
mingw64-filesystem
mingw-filesystem.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided cross-filesystem
mingw-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided
cross-filesystem-scripts
mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/libexec/mingw-scripts
mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/mingw-filesystem-scripts-69/COPYING
mingw32-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-filesystem.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/mingw32-configure
/usr/libexec/mingw-scripts
mingw32-filesystem.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mingw32-configure
mingw64-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-filesystem.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/mingw64-configure
/usr/libexec/mingw-scripts
mingw64-filesystem.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mingw64-configure
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.

I don't think the FSF address is an issue, but you may want to correct it. The
rest of the messages look harmless.

+ rpmlint output
+ The package is named according to the latest 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 (COPYING)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
? Upstream sources match sources in the srpm.
  They are all plain-text scripts, but where is upstream?
+ The package builds in koji
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3053279
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
n/a 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 BuildRoot lines
which are also no longer required in current Fedora releases, before importing
the package to git.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#.25clean

I'll approve it once I know where the upstream is. I feel a comment should be
put where a VC system containing the scripts is. If there is no VC system then
I guess it passes. I don't see a guideline that prohibits script-only packages.

-- 
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.