[Bug 467413] Review Request: mingw32-fontconfig - MinGW Windows Fontconfig library

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Feb 18 14:02:57 UTC 2009


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=467413


Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #4 from Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com>  2009-02-18 09:02:55 EDT ---
Mostly OK except that it fails to build due to lack of mingw32-expat and I
don't see a mingw32-expat package review. Maybe its been missed.

One other small one is that the patch line should prob use the named option. EG
%patch0 -p1 -b .remove-logfile or similar.

+ rpmlint output

$ rpmlint -i mingw32-fontconfig-2.6.0-8.fc11.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
+ license matches the actual package license

+ %doc includes license file
+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
ab54ec1d4ddd836313fdbc0cd5299d6d  fontconfig-2.6.0.tar.gz
- package successfully builds on at least one architecture
  tested using koji scratch build
  http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1135503

  Failing due to lack of mingw32-expat

+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
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
n/a package owns all directories it creates
n/a no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ 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
n/a static libraries should be in -static
+ 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
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if
available
- reviewer should build the package in mock/koji
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
n/a review should test the package functions as described
+ scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or
/usr/sbin

-- 
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