[Bug 825557] Review Request: mingw-clucene - CLucene 2.3.3.4 built for MinGW

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825557

--- Comment #16 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember at gmail.com> ---
Fedora review of mingw-clucene-2.3.3.4-3.fc17.src.rpm 2012-11-16

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint mingw-clucene-2.3.3.4-3.fc18.src.rpm \
          mingw32-clucene \
          mingw64-clucene \
          mingw32-clucene-debuginfo-2.3.3.4-3.fc18.noarch.rpm \
          mingw64-clucene-debuginfo-2.3.3.4-3.fc18.noarch.rpm
mingw32-clucene.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C date with Lucene 2.3.2.
It contains most of the same functionality as the Java version.
mingw32-clucene.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-clucene-2.3.3.4/LGPL.license
mingw64-clucene.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C date with Lucene 2.3.2.
It contains most of the same functionality as the Java version.
mingw64-clucene.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/mingw64-clucene-2.3.3.4/LGPL.license
mingw-clucene.src: E: description-line-too-long C date with Lucene 2.3.2. It
contains most of the same functionality as the Java version.
mingw-clucene.src:70: W: setup-not-quiet
mingw-clucene.src:15: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 15, tab:
line 5)
mingw32-clucene-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-clucene-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 2 warnings.

Can you try to address these warnings where it makes sense, to cut down the
noise a bit?

One warning that is likely to remain is the debuginfo-without-sources: this is
just a common warning with all mingw debuginfo packages, nothing wrong with
this particular package.

The other one you shouldn't directly fix is the incorrect-fsf-address: we
aren't supposed to patch license files in downstream packages; instead, if you
want to, you can file a ticket with upstream asking if they can update the
LGPL.license file in the next release.

+ The package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
+ The spec file name matches the base package 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 files (APACHE.license, COPYING,
LGPL.license)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
  48d647fbd8ef8889e5a7f422c1bfda94  clucene-core-2.3.3.4.tar.gz
  48d647fbd8ef8889e5a7f422c1bfda94  Download/clucene-core-2.3.3.4.tar.gz
+ The package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires look sane
n/a locale handling
n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun
! Package bundles copies of system libraries

I can see copies of boost and zlib in the tarball, under src/ext/. Can you
remove these in %prep to make sure the package doesn't use the bundled copies?

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
Not applicable to MinGW packages.
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
+ Packages must not contain libtool .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Directory ownership sane
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8

Some minor nitpicks about the spec file:

> Summary:        A C++ port of Lucene
Most of the mingw packages in Fedora mention mingw in their summary, often
starting it with "Summary: MinGW ...". Might be nice to follow this convention
here as well.

> Group:          Development/System
The package management tools in Fedora don't make any use of the Group tag, so
if you want to, all 3 Group tags here can be removed.

> Patch52: mingw-clucene-core-2.3.3.4-fix-threads.patch
Can you submit this upstream?

> Provides:       mingw32-clucene = %{version}-%{release}
[...]
> Provides:       mingw64-clucene = %{version}-%{release}
Please remove the these provides, they are now the same as the binary package
names.

> %setup -n %{_pkg_name}-core-%{version}
Should be "%setup -qn ...", like rpmlint noted above.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.