[Bug 502388] Review Request: mingw32-enchant - MinGW Windows Enchanting Spell Checking Library

[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=502388


Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED




--- Comment #4 from Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee>  2009-08-08 18:01:58 EDT ---
Fedora review mingw32-enchant-1.5.0-1.fc12.src.rpm 2009-08-09

+ OK
! needs attention

! rpmlint output:
mingw32-enchant.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/enchant/libenchant_myspell.a
   => This is a static lib which needs to be placed in a -static subpackage or
removed.

mingw32-enchant-static.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libenchant.a
mingw32-enchant-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
   => Those errors / warnings are harmless and can be ignored for a mingw32
package.

mingw32-enchant.src: W: strange-permission compile-resources 0775
   => Should probably be 0755.

+ Package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines

+ Specfile name matches the package base name

! Package does not follow the Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
The %files section must list DLLs separately, which also includes the DLLs in
%{_mingw32_libdir}/enchant/

+ The stated license (LGPLv2+) is a Fedora approved license

+ The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding
  Fedora package

+ The package contains the license file (COPYING.LIB)

+ Spec file is written in American English

+ Spec file is legible

+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm
7dfaed14e142b4a0004b770c9568ed02  enchant-1.5.0.tar.gz
7dfaed14e142b4a0004b770c9568ed02  SRPM/enchant-1.5.0.tar.gz

+ Package builds in mock (Fedora Rawhide i386)

n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed

! BuildRequires: automake is probably not needed and can be removed
  Besides that, BuildRequires look sane.

n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*

n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun

+ Does not use Prefix: /usr

+ Package owns all directories it creates

+ No duplicate files in %files

+ %files has %defattr

! %clean contains rm -r $RPM_BUILD_ROOT, but according to packaging guidelines
it should be "rm -rf"

+ Consistent use of macros

+ Package must contain code or permissible content

n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage

+ Files marked %doc should not affect package

n/a Header files should be in -devel
    Fedora MinGW guidelines allow headers in main package

! Static libraries should be in -static
%{_mingw32_libdir}/enchant/libenchant_myspell.a needs to be placed either in a
-static subpackage or removed.

! Packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'

n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel

n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base

n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files
    Fedora MinGW guidelines allow .la files

n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file

+ Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages

+ %install begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

+ Filenames must be valid UTF-8

! As per MinGW packaging guidelines, the mingw32- package should track native
  Fedora package as close as possible and include all the same patches.
Consider including three additional patches that the native package has:
#http://bugzilla.abisource.com/show_bug.cgi?id=12160
Patch0: enchant-1.5.0-abi12160.searchdirs.patch
#http://bugzilla.abisource.com/show_bug.cgi?id=12173
Patch1: enchant-1.5.0-abi12173.leaks.patch
#http://bugzilla.abisource.com/show_bug.cgi?id=12174
Patch2: enchant-1.5.0-abi12174.fixbadmatch.patch

! A comment in the spec says that there's a file named "compile-resource"
  missing from the tarball. Have you filed an upstream bug report for the
  missing file?

! All patches should have an upstream bug link or comment

-- 
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.