[Bug 525540] Review Request: mingw32-gtkhtml - MinGW Windows port of GtkHTML

[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=525540


Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |kalev at smartlink.ee,
                   |                            |mbarnes at redhat.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |kalev at smartlink.ee
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember <kalev at smartlink.ee>  2009-11-18 12:53:22 EDT ---
Fedora review mingw32-gtkhtml-3.28.0-1.fc12.src.rpm 2009-11-18

+ OK
! needs attention

rpmlint says:
  mingw32-gtkhtml.src: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US webbrowser
  mingw32-gtkhtml.noarch: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US webbrowser
  mingw32-gtkhtml-static.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgtkhtml-editor.a
  mingw32-gtkhtml-static.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgtkhtml-3.14.a
  mingw32-gtkhtml-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
  mingw32-gtkhtml-debuginfo.noarch: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US mingw
  mingw32-gtkhtml-debuginfo.noarch: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US
mingw
  mingw32-gtkhtml-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
  4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 5 warnings.

! I guess rpmlint is right about 'webbrowser', but other errors are harmless
and expected for mingw32 packages.

! The matching native package is named 'gtkhtml3', and I think this one should
also be named mingw32-gtkhtml3 (with '3').
+ Package follows the Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
+ The stated license (LGPLv2+) is a Fedora approved license
! The stated license differs from the native Fedora package (LGPLv2+ and GPLv2)
+ The package contains the license file (COPYING)
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. sha1sum:
  b0abcf98447acf385a108061bb7f80769bc18a0e  gtkhtml-3.28.0.tar.bz2
  b0abcf98447acf385a108061bb7f80769bc18a0e  Download/gtkhtml-3.28.0.tar.bz2
+ Package builds in koji
+ BuildRequires look sane
+ The spec file handles locales properly
+ 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 contains code or permissible content
+ 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 are in mingw32-gtkhtml-static subpackage
+ Packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
+ Although ReviewGuidlines says that packages should not contain libtool .la
files, MinGW guidelines allow them.
+ Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ Filenames are valid UTF-8

While you are at it, can you also update the package to match the version of
gtkhtml3 in F-12?

CC-ing native gtkhtml3 package maintainer in case he has any comments.

-- 
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.