[Bug 491614] Review Request: mingw32-libglademm24 - C++ wrapper for libglade

[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=491614





--- Comment #5 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se>  2009-04-19 13:22:31 EDT ---
Fedora review mingw32-libglademm24-2.6.7-4.fc11.src.rpm 2008-04-19

* 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)

* The spec file is written in legible English

* Sources matches upstream

f9ca5b67f6c551ea98790ab5f21c19d0  libglademm-2.6.7.tar.bz2
f9ca5b67f6c551ea98790ab5f21c19d0  SRPM/libglademm-2.6.7.tar.bz2

* According to guidelines the version should match the version of the
  corresponding Fedora package - which it does.

* Package builds in mock (Fedora 10)

! The package contains documentation already present in the native
  Fedora package

* BuildRequires look sane

! But is there a reason for having the "BuildArch: noarch" listed in
  the middle of the list of Thr BuildRequies?

* 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.