[Bug 499991] Review Request: mingw32-libxslt - MinGW Windows Library providing the Gnome XSLT engine

[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=499991


Thomas Sailer <t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch




--- Comment #1 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer at alumni.ethz.ch>  2009-05-22 07:05:52 EDT ---
Fedora review
http://www.ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw32-libxslt-1.1.24-5.fc11.src.rpm
2009-05-22

Scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1370212

rpmlint output:
$ mingw32-libxslt.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: multilib.patch
mingw32-libxslt.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.24-6
['1.1.24-5.fc12', '1.1.24-5']
mingw32-libxslt.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink
/usr/share/doc/mingw32-libxslt-1.1.24/COPYING Copyright
mingw32-libxslt.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: multilib.patch
mingw32-libxslt.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: multilib.patch
mingw32-libxslt-static.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libxslt.a
mingw32-libxslt-static.noarch: E:
arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object
/usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libexslt.a
mingw32-libxslt-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 6 warnings.

As per Packaging/MinGW, arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object and
no-documentation errors can be ignored. Please fix the rest.

+ OK
! needs attention


! rpmlint output
+ Package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
+ Specfile name matches the package base name
+ Package follows the Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines
  version seems to be slightly ahead of native (1.1 vs. 1.0) please try to
  stick to the native version
+ License meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
  LGPLv2
+ License matches the actual package license
  MIT
  It is also the same as in the corresponding Fedora libxslt package
! The package contains the license file (COPYING)
  Dangling symlink
+ Spec file is written in American English
+ Spec file is legible
! Please remove the unapplied patch0, and the changelog version issue
+ Upstream sources match sources in the srpm
e83ec5d27fc4c10c6f612879bea9a153  libxslt-1.1.24.tar.gz
e83ec5d27fc4c10c6f612879bea9a153  x/libxslt-1.1.24.tar.gz

n/a Package builds in mock
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun
+ 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 must contain code or permissible content
n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
+ 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 should be in -static
+ Packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files
    Fedora MinGW guidelines allow .la files
n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
+ Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ Filenames must be valid UTF-8
! use %global instead of %define

-- 
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.