[Bug 527704] Review Request: mingw32-proj - MinGW port of the proj cartographic projection library package

[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=527704


Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> changed:

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




--- Comment #14 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-10-15 11:06:30 EDT ---
Ok, assuming that we'll come to an agreement on whether we should include or
exclude these apps, here is my 

REVIEW:

+/- rpmlint is not silent:

[petro at Workplace ~]$ rpmlint Desktop/mingw32-proj-4.6.1-3.fc11.noarch.rpm 
mingw32-proj.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libproj.dll.a
mingw32-proj.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/projects.h
mingw32-proj.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/nad_list.h
mingw32-proj.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libproj.dll.a
mingw32-proj.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libproj.dll.a
mingw32-proj.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/org_proj4_Projections.h
mingw32-proj.noarch: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/proj_api.h
mingw32-proj.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-pc-mingw32
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.
[petro at Workplace ~]$

Fortunately, all these messages are common in case of mingw32-related package
and may be safely ignored.

+ The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec .
+ The package meets the Packaging Guidelines .
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English (note, that I'm not a native
American English speaker). 
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package matches the upstream source.

[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$ sha256sum proj-4.6.1.tar.gz*
76d174edd4fdb4c49c1c0ed8308a469216c01e7177a4510b1b303ef3c5f97b47 
proj-4.6.1.tar.gz
76d174edd4fdb4c49c1c0ed8308a469216c01e7177a4510b1b303ef3c5f97b47 
proj-4.6.1.tar.gz.1
[petro at Sulaco SOURCES]$

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture. See koji logs above.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings. 
+/- Permissions on files were set properly
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package must consistently use macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissable content.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.

+ Header files must be in a -devel package, but mingw32 packages allowed to do
so.
+ No static libraries.
+ No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ Not a GUI application.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Ok, I'm leaving the decision whether or not to include *.exe files to Dave's
choice. I have no strong opinion here.

Otherwise this package is 

APPROVED

-- 
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.