1:23 p.m.
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891011
Bug ID: 891011
Summary: Review Request: mingw-angleproject - Almost Native
Graphics Layer Engine
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: Package Review
Severity: unspecified
Priority: unspecified
Reporter: erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl
Spec URL:
http://svn.openftd.org/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-angleproject/mingw-anglepro...
SRPM URL:
http://koji.vanpienbroek.nl/kojifiles/packages/mingw-angleproject/0/2.svn...
Fedora Account System Username: epienbro
Description:
ANGLE is a conformant implementation of the OpenGL ES 2.0 specification that
is hardware‐accelerated via Direct3D. ANGLE v1.0.772 was certified compliant
by passing the ES 2.0.3 conformance tests in October 2011. ANGLE also provides
an implementation of the EGL 1.4 specification.
ANGLE is used as the default WebGL backend for both Google Chrome and
Mozilla Firefox on Windows platforms. Chrome uses ANGLE for all graphics
rendering on Windows, including the accelerated Canvas2D implementation
and the Native Client sandbox environment.
Portions of the ANGLE shader compiler are used as a shader validator and
translator by WebGL implementations across multiple platforms. It is used
on Mac OS X, Linux, and in mobile variants of the browsers. Having one shader
validator helps to ensure that a consistent set of GLSL ES shaders are
accepted across browsers and platforms. The shader translator can be used
to translate shaders to other shading languages, and to optionally apply
shader modifications to work around bugs or quirks in the native graphics
drivers. The translator targets Desktop GLSL, Direct3D HLSL, and even ESSL
for native GLES2 platforms.
==
This package is required by mingw-qt5-qtbase (bug 858058)
--
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=qjbq0JlDOF&a=cc_unsubscribe
1:27 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 891011] Review Request: mingw-angleproject - Almost Native Graphics Layer Engine
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891011
Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |858058
--
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=qrP4vbgvUb&a=cc_unsubscribe
10:32 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 891011] Review Request: mingw-angleproject - Almost Native Graphics Layer Engine
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=891011
greg.hellings(a)gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|package-review(a)lists.fedora |
|project.org |
CC| |greg.hellings(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from greg.hellings(a)gmail.com ---
As I asked in IRC, I'm not sure you want versions to be of the type
0-2.svnX.timestamp.dist
If you later update to svnX+1 won't you want to drop back to release -1? With
the current scheme 0-1.svnX+1.timestamp.dist will be seen as a lower version
number. SVN revision and/or timestamp would need to be before the -1 and -2 in
order for revision comparison to sort out properly. Is the current behavior
your intention?
-rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces.
The output should be posted in the review.
$ rpmlint results_mingw-angleproject/0/2.svn1561.20121214.fc18/mingw*rpm
mingw32-angleproject.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conformant
-> conform ant, conform-ant, conformance
mingw32-angleproject.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend ->
backed, back end, back-end
mingw32-angleproject.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader ->
shared, shade, shadier
mingw32-angleproject.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US validator
-> lavatorial
mingw32-angleproject.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shaders ->
shades, sharers, shavers
mingw32-angleproject.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-angleproject-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw32-angleproject-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-angleproject-static.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libGLESv2.a
mingw32-angleproject-static.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libEGL.a
mingw64-angleproject.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conformant
-> conform ant, conform-ant, conformance
mingw64-angleproject.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend ->
backed, back end, back-end
mingw64-angleproject.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader ->
shared, shade, shadier
mingw64-angleproject.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US validator
-> lavatorial
mingw64-angleproject.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shaders ->
shades, sharers, shavers
mingw64-angleproject.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-angleproject-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-angleproject-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-angleproject-static.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libEGL.a
mingw64-angleproject-static.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libGLESv2.a
mingw-angleproject.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US conformant ->
conform ant, conform-ant, conformance
mingw-angleproject.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US backend ->
backed, back end, back-end
mingw-angleproject.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shader ->
shared, shade, shadier
mingw-angleproject.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US validator ->
lavatorial
mingw-angleproject.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US shaders ->
shades, sharers, shavers
mingw-angleproject.src:171: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 6,
tab: line 171)
mingw-angleproject.src: W: invalid-url Source0: angleproject-r1561.tar.bz2
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 25 warnings.
It looks like minimally the mixed-use warning can be squashed and the +x should
be removed.
+The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
+The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
+The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
+The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
-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.
The LICENSE file is not included in %doc
+The spec file must be written in American English.
+The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
+The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is
used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
+The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture. (I tested x86_64 on f18)
+If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line.
+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. Apply common sense.
+The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
(n/a)Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files
(not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
+Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
(n/a) 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. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker.
+A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
+A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
+Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example.
+Each package must consistently use macros.
+The package must contain code, or permissable content.
+Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
+If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the
application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if
it is not present.
+Static libraries must be in a -static package.
(n/a) Development files must be in a -devel package.
(n/a) In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release}
+Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in
the spec if they are built.
+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. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a
.desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
+Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package review time.
+All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
--
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=zb0RiqyuQz&a=cc_unsubscribe
4154
days inactive
4158
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
2 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Red Hat Bugzilla