[Bug 1741575] New: Review Request: mingw-libunistring - MinGW port of GNU Unicode string library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741575
Bug ID: 1741575 Summary: Review Request: mingw-libunistring - MinGW port of GNU Unicode string library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: fidencio@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fidencio.fedorapeople.org/mingw-libunistring/mingw-libunistring.spec SRPM URL: https://fidencio.fedorapeople.org/mingw-libunistring/mingw-libunistring-0.9.... Description: MinGW port of GNU Unicode string library Fedora Account System Username: fidencio
Context: I'm adding mingw-libunistring as libunistring is a libpsl dependency, which is a dependency of libsoup. The final goal is to be able to update mingw-libsoup.
Mind that there's still no mingw-libpsl package, as it depends on this one to be approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741575
Fabiano Fidêncio fidencio@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1741582
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741582 [Bug 1741582] Review Request: mingw-libpsl - MinGW port of C library for the Publix Suffix List
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741575
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - You could strip the doc https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/MinGW/#_files_whic...
Package approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 2437120 bytes in 106 files. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_documentation
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "GPL (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention)", "Expat License", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GNU Free Documentation License", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2.1 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v3 or later)", "GNU Lesser General Public License (v2 or later)", "FSF Unlimited License (with Retention) GNU General Public License (v2)". 1209 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-libunistring/review-mingw- libunistring/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32-libunistring , mingw64-libunistring [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741575
--- Comment #2 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mingw-libunistring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1741575
Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2021-07-04 15:19:23
--- Comment #3 from Mattia Verga mattia.verga@protonmail.com --- Package is in repos
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com