[Bug 492130] Review Request: mingw32-gtkmm24 - MinGW Windows C++ interface for GTK2 (a GUI library for X)

[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=492130


Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?

Bug 492130 depends on bug 492125, which changed state.

Bug 492125 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-pangomm - MinGW Windows C++ interface for Pango
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492125

           What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED



--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se>  2009-04-18 11:28:09 EDT ---
Fedora review mingw32-gtkmm24-2.15.0-1.fc11.src.rpm 2009-04-18

* OK
! needs attention

* rpmlint output
  Only expected Errors/Warnings from a mingw package

* Package is named according to Fedora mingw packaging guidelines

* Spec file is named as the package

* Package follows the Fedora mingw packaging guidelines

* The stated license (LGPLv2+) is a Fedora approved license

* The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding
  Fedora package

* The package contains the license file (COPYING) which is LGPL v2.1

! The package also includes another license file (COPYING.tools) from
  the source tarball which is the GPL2 license. Is any of the
  components in the package released under this license? If there are
  components in the package released under this license the License
  tag should reflect this. If there are no components in the package
  released under this license this file shouldn't be in the package.
  The corresponding native Fedora package gtkmm24 doesn't seem to
  package this file.

* The spec file is written in legible English

* Sources matches upstream
  b1b3e8efa33425bf91ba49922fab13ac  gtkmm-2.15.0.tar.bz2
  b1b3e8efa33425bf91ba49922fab13ac  SRPM/gtkmm-2.15.0.tar.bz2

! Accoding to guidelines the version should match the version of the
  corresponding Fedora package. The current version of the native
  package (in F11 and devel) is 2.16.0.

* Package builds in mock (Fedora 10).

! Since the documentation is deleted anyway after the build, wouldn't
  it make sense to pass --disable-doc to configure so that it is not
  built in the first place?

* BuildRequires look sane

* Owns the directories it creates

* No duplicate files

* %files has %defattr

* %clean clears %buildroot

* Specfile uses macros consistently

* Package does not own other's directories

* %install clears %buildroot

* Installed filenames are valid UTF8

-- 
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.