[Bug 502387] Review Request: mingw32-hunspell - MinGW Windows spell checker and morphological analyzer 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=502387


Thomas Sailer <t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch>  2009-05-26 06:13:51 EDT ---
Fedora review
http://www.ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw32-libgnurx-2.5.1-1.fc11.src.rpm
2009-05-26

rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint *
mingw32-hunspell.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libparsers.a
mingw32-hunspell-static.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libhunspell-1.2.a
mingw32-hunspell-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings.

As per Packaging/MinGW, these errors can be ignored.

+ OK
! needs attention


+ rpmlint output
+ Package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
+ Specfile name matches the package base name
+ Package follows the Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
  version seems to be slightly ahead of native (1.1 vs. 1.0) please try to
  stick to the native version
+ License meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
  LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ or MPLv1.1
+ License matches the actual package license
+ The package contains the license file (COPYING,COPYING.LGPL,COPYING.MPL)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
  - IMO, you don't need to include the whole history of the native package
    in %changelog, just a reference that it was derived from the native package
    would be sufficient

+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm
1177af54a09e320d2c24015f29c3a93e  hunspell-1.2.8.tar.gz
1177af54a09e320d2c24015f29c3a93e  x/hunspell-1.2.8.tar.gz

n/a Package builds in mock
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ 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
+ Package owns all directories it creates
+ No duplicate files in %files
+ %files has %defattr
+ %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
    Fedora MinGW guidelines allow headers in main package
+ 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
    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

Have you tried to upstream your patches?
Especially hunspell-build-dll.patch seems like very upstream-worthy.
Also, what is the failure mode of AC_FUNC_MALLOC? I guess a bug report with
autoconf would be in order.

-- 
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.