[Bug 818256] Review Request: mingw-spice-gtk - client libraries for SPICE desktop servers

[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=818256

Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |hdegoede at redhat.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |hdegoede at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede <hdegoede at redhat.com> 2012-05-10 10:17:30 EDT ---
Full review done:

Good:
--------
- rpmlint checks return:
mingw32-spice-glib.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency mingw32-glib2
mingw32-spice-glib.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86_64-w64-mingw32
mingw32-spice-gtk.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-spice-gtk-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw32-spice-gtk-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-spice-gtk3.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-spice-glib.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency mingw64-glib2
mingw64-spice-glib.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-w64-mingw32
mingw64-spice-gtk.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-spice-gtk-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-spice-gtk-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-spice-gtk3.noarch: W: no-documentation
10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings.
^^These are all expected for mingw packages, so no problem here ^^
- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license (LGPLv2+) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- locales properly handled
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file

Needs-work:
-----------------
- you remove all .la files, but non of the other mingw packages I have seen do
that, so it is probably better to not do that. Note, this seems something which
is under discussion:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Packaging_issues
But as said I believe for now it is best to just keep the .la files there.

-- 
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.