https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
Bug ID: 835686 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mingw-wine-mono - Mono library required for Wine Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono-0.0.4-4.fc17.src.rpm Description: Mono library required for Wine. Fedora Account System Username: awjb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
Erik van Pienbroek erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl
--- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl --- I see you're not using mingw32-wine-mono or mingw64-wine-mono binary package names but put the .msi file in a binary rpm named mingw-wine-mono. Is this intentional? Does it contain both the win32 and win64 pieces?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #2 from Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de --- Yes this is intentional. I'd prefer a setup like wine-gecko but this is what wine currently supports.
Here is the quote from: http://wiki.winehq.org/Mono "Unlike gecko, there is only one package containing the code for both x86 and x86_64, as most of the code does not depend on the architecture."
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de --- http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono.spec http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono-0.0.4-5.fc17.src.rpm
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4201110
* Wed Jun 27 2012 Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert[AT]lowlatency.de> - 0.0.4-5 - add conditional so package builds on x86-64 builders as well
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
Kalev Lember kalevlember@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kalevlember@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember kalevlember@gmail.com --- Regarding the naming issue that Erik pointed out:
The MinGW Packaging Guidelines are for library packages that can be used for building Windows apps. But this package is different; it only installs a .msi and no dlls / header files and is apparently only meant for use within Wine.
As such, perhaps it would be clearer if it's called 'wine-mono'? This package is really just another component for the wine stack, even though it's built using the mingw cross compiler. I don't think the mingw naming guidelines are applicable here.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #5 from Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de --- I am fine with it either way. However, if we decide on wine-mono we should rename the gecko stuff accordingly...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek erik-fedora@vanpienbroek.nl --- I was just about to propose the exact same thing about the package naming :) I'm +1 to use the package name wine-mono given the situation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: wine-mono - |mingw-wine-mono - Mono |Mono library required for |library required for Wine |Wine
--- Comment #7 from Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de --- http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wine-mono.spec http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.src.rpm
* Fri Jun 29 2012 Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert[AT]lowlatency.de> - 0.0.4-6 - rename to wine-mono
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mike@cchtml.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mike@cchtml.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #8 from Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com --- Taking for review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #9 from Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com --- Even though you are not packaging a traditional MinGW package, you are using the MinGW toolkit to build it so I feel it should try to follow the MinGW packaging guidelines.
$ md5sum Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz 61c5ee49b8847c4dccfdab1fbc0706ae Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz $ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz 61c5ee49b8847c4dccfdab1fbc0706ae rpmbuild/SOURCES/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/wine-mono.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/michael/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.noarch.rpm wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-COPYING.LIB wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-mcs-LICENSE.GPL wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-mcs-LICENSE.LGPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.
+ OK ! Needs to be looked into / Not applicable
[+] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines [/] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-' [!] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header} [!] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file [!] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file [/] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages [+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch [/] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section [/] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4 to configure the package [/] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package [/] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package [/] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used [/] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated [/] Libtool .la files are not bundled [/] .def files are not bundled [/] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled [/] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled [/] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal [/] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
The incorrect-fsf-address rpmlint warning should be reported upstream.
Please check the items I marked that need looking into before I pass the review: -%?mingw_package_header should be %{?mingw_package_header} -The BRs for the filesystem packages are missing.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |834762
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #10 from Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de --- incorrect-fsf-address reported upstream: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31121
http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wine-mono.spec http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wine-mono-0.0.4-7.fc17.src.rpm
* Wed Jul 04 2012 Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert[AT]lowlatency.de> - 0.0.4-7 - add mingw-filesystem BR - fix header macro
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #11 from Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com --- Looks good.
================================================ The package wine-mono is APPROVED by mooninite ================================================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #12 from Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: wine-mono Short Description: Mono library required for Wine Owners: awjb Branches: f17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #13 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2012-07-05 11:23:02
--- Comment #14 from Andreas Bierfert andreas.bierfert@lowlatency.de --- Thanks for the review!
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla