[Bug 961405] Review Request: mingw-openjpeg - MinGW Windows OpenJPEG library

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961405

--- Comment #2 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch> ---
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
* Overridden by MinGW guidelines

$ $ rpmlint *.rpm mingw-openjpeg.spec 
mingw32-openjpeg-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw32-openjpeg-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-openjpeg-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-openjpeg-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw-openjpeg.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openjpeg.googlecode.com/files/openjpeg-1.5.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
mingw-openjpeg.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
http://openjpeg.googlecode.com/files/openjpeg-1.5.1.tar.gz HTTP Error 404: Not
Found
7 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.

[+] The source URL warnings can be ignored; wget downloads the file from the
given URL just fine. This seems to be a bug in rpmlint
[+] The other errors and warnings can be ignored as well

[+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw,
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/
[+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem, mingw64-filesystem is in the .spec file
[+] Requires are OK
[+] BuildArch: noarch
[+] No man pages or info files
[+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw specific ones

[+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license
[+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL.
$ md5sum openjpeg-1.5.1.tar.gz o/openjpeg-1.5.1.tar.gz 
b5f74cec2688fb918331bb014061be6f  openjpeg-1.5.1.tar.gz
b5f74cec2688fb918331bb014061be6f  o/openjpeg-1.5.1.tar.gz
[+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one supported architecture.
[+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
[/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[*] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. 
[/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package.
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
[/] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[/] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
[*] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[*] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[*] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[/] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[/] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[/] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[/] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.
[/] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[/] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself.

Some points:
- A dependency on pkgconfig, while not strictly required, might be useful
- Why aren't you building static libraries? I'm not particularly attached to
those, but it seems to be customary for mingw packages to do so...
- The unversioned DLL seems a bit dangerous (i.e. libopenjpeg.dll instead of
libopenjpeg-1.5.dll); the autoconf build system would produce the latter
- Is there any use for the executables in the tools subpackage? why not just
delete them?
- are you aware that mingw-openjpeg is already in the distribution <= f18 and
was dead.packaged in >=f19?

-- 
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=6JXXwqR3XU&a=cc_unsubscribe