[Bug 754185] Review Request: mingw32-p11-kit - MinGW package for p11-kit

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Nov 15 17:33:35 UTC 2011


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=754185

Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

--- Comment #1 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora at vanpienbroek.nl> 2011-11-15 12:33:34 EST ---
Hi Michael,

Here are some initial review remarks:
- The following lines can be dropped (because of the automatic RPM 4.9
dependency magic) :
  %global _use_internal_dependency_generator 0
  %global __find_requires %{_mingw32_findrequires}
  %global __find_provides %{_mingw32_findprovides}
- Why have you added manual Requires tags for mingw32-gettext and
mingw32-iconv? Dependencies should normally be handled by the automatic RPM 4.9
dependency magic so you shouldn't need to provide manual Requires tags here
- Is regenerating the configure script and Makefiles using the
autotools/libtool really necessary?
- Is the PATH override in the %build section really needed?
- The line 'rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT' from the %install section, the entire
%clean section and the %defattr line can be removed as modern RPM doesn't
require it anymore
- The folder %{_mingw32_sysconfdir}/pkcs11 is currently un-owned. Please add a
'%dir %{_mingw32_sysconfdir}/pkcs11' to the %files section

-- 
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