[Bug 858085] Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns - Qt5 for Windows - QtXmlPatterns component

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858085

Kalev Lember <kalevlember at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |kalevlember at gmail.com
           Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |kalevlember at gmail.com
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Kalev Lember <kalevlember at gmail.com> ---
Fedora review mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc23.src.rpm 2015-03-25

$ rpmlint mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc22.src.rpm \
          mingw32-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm \
          mingw64-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-5.4.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm \
          mingw32-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-debuginfo-5.4.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm \
          mingw64-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-debuginfo-5.4.1-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{qt_module}
mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev}
mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{qt_module}
mingw-qt5-qtxmlpatterns.src:29: W: macro-in-comment %{snapshot_rev}
mingw32-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-qt5-qtxmlpatterns-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.

+ OK
! needs attention

+ rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored
+ 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 for the mingw package is the same as the one for the
  corresponding native Fedora package
! The license text is included in %license

  Can you use %license instead of %doc for the license files, please?

+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match the sources in the srpm
  ec2970e9e9c38f88be74f18101937c28  qtxmlpatterns-opensource-src-5.4.1.tar.xz
  ec2970e9e9c38f88be74f18101937c28 
Download/qtxmlpatterns-opensource-src-5.4.1.tar.xz
+ 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 does not bundle copies of system libraries
n/a Package isn't relocatable
+ Package owns all the 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 the runtime of application
n/a Static libraries should be in -static
n/a Development files should be in -devel
    Not applicable to MinGW packages.
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
+ Packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a Proper .desktop file handling
+ Doesn't own files or directories already owned by other packages
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8

Looks good to me, just a minor problem with the %license vs %doc macros -- the
guidelines were recently updated to require the %license macro for license
files. Please fix this before importing.

APPROVED

-- 
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=DcfBG6zUY6&a=cc_unsubscribe