[Bug 527706] Review Request: mingw32-libgeotiff - MinGW port of libgeotiff Georeferenced image library

[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=527706


Bug 527706 depends on bug 527704, which changed state.

Bug 527704 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-proj - MinGW port of the proj cartographic projection library package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=527704

           What    |Old Value                   |New Value
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ON_QA                       |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |ERRATA



--- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com>  2009-11-05 09:58:03 EDT ---
Koji scratchbuild for F-11 (success):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1789938

Koji scratchbuild for F-12 (success):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1789940

Koji scratchbuild for EL-5 (FAILURE!):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1789943

Review:

+ rpmlint is silent


+/- The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines, except
one small issue in the versioning scheme - since you're packaging pre-release
(from VCS), then "Release" field should start from 0. E.g.

Release:  0.1.svn1664%{?dist}

+ 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, should be
included in %doc, but, unfortunately, upstream does not ship this file in their
VCS. This issue was reported upstream (see comments above) and may be ignoired
here.

+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.

+/- The sources used to build the package, must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. However, since this is a pre-release and no tarball
was provided by upstream, the only way to check the integrity of the sources,
is to make diff against freshly checked out VCS tree. So, please, provide the
instructions in comments somewhere within spec-file on how to create this
checkout. See this spec, for example:

http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/superiotool/devel/superiotool.spec?view=markup

+/- The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one primary architecture. Unfortunately, the package failed to build on EL-5
due to missing dependencies on mingw32-{libtiff|proj}. Please, keep this in
mind, then you'll requesting cvs branches.

+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ 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 are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files.
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
0 Not a GUI application.

- The package must NOT own files or directories already owned by other
packages. Unfortunately, it owns %{_mingw32_libdir}/pkgconfig which is already
owned by mingw32-filesystem.

+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8

Please, fixissues noted above, and I'll continue.

-- 
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.