[Bug 491618] Review Request: mingw32-libsqlite3x - MinGW Windows C++ wrapper for the sqlite database library

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Apr 28 13:23:09 UTC 2009

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


--- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se>  2009-04-28 09:23:08 EDT ---
Fedora review mingw32-libsqlite3x-20071018-6.fc11.src.rpm 2009-04-28

* OK
! needs attention

* rpmlint output
  Only expected Errors/Warnings from a mingw package

* Package is named according to Fedora mingw packaging guidelines

* Spec file is named as the package

* Package follows the Fedora mingw packaging guidelines

* License is MIT, which is Fedora approved

* The license is the same as the corresponding native package

! How was it determined that the native's package license should be MIT?

* There is no License file in the source tarfile (though some license
  statements are in the README file which is packaged).

* The spec file is written in legible English

* Source matches upstream

f5015c83030236205aec1494b13ee334  libsqlite3x-2007.10.18.tar.gz
f5015c83030236205aec1494b13ee334  SRPM/libsqlite3x-2007.10.18.tar.gz

* According to guidelines the version should match the version of the
  corresponding Fedora package - which it does.

* Package builds in mock (Fedora 10)

! The package contains documentation already present in the native
  Fedora package

* BuildRequires look sane

! But is there a reason for having the "BuildArch: noarch" listed in
  the middle of the list of Thr BuildRequies?

* Owns the directories it creates

* No duplicate files

* %files has %defattr

* %clean clears %buildroot

* Specfile uses macros consistently

* Package does not own other's directories

* %install clears %buildroot

* Installed filenames are valid UTF8

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.

More information about the package-review mailing list