Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=613697
Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libogg - The Ogg bitstream file format library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: kraxel@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora Target Release: ---
Spec URL: http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libogg/mingw32-libogg.spec SRPM URL: http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libogg/mingw32-libogg-1.1.4-1.... Description: Libogg is a library for manipulating Ogg bitstream file formats. Libogg supports both making Ogg bitstreams and getting packets from Ogg bitstreams.
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=613697
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
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=613697
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rjones@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=613697
--- Comment #1 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2010-07-12 12:16:03 EDT --- That file is a binary RPM, not the SRPM. Nevertheless I reconstructed the SRPM from the spec file.
rpmlint output:
mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ogg -> Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bitstream -> bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ogg -> Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstream -> bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstreams -> bit streams, bit-streams, bloodstreams
Bogus as usual.
mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-buildroot-tag mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-%clean-section
I think these are all no longer required.
mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ogg -> Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bitstream -> bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ogg -> Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstream -> bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstreams -> bit streams, bit-streams, bloodstreams
Bogus as above.
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
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=613697
--- Comment #2 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2010-07-12 12:22:10 EDT --- + rpmlint output + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora BSD, and the native package is already in Fedora + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tried it on x86-64, cross-compiled to i386 n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies + %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
%{_mingw32_docdir}/libogg-%{version} is not needed, or if you want to include it, it must be marked %doc
+ %defattr line n/a %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 + header files should be in -devel this rule is not applicable for mingw32-* packages + static libraries should be in -static this rule is not applicable for mingw32-* packages n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files this rule is not applicable for mingw32-* packages n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + filenames must be valid UTF-8 + use %global instead of %define
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available - reviewer should build the package in mock - the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures - review should test the package functions as described + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin
Please fix the docdir thing mentioned above.
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=613697
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(kraxel@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=613697
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |454410(mingw32-gcc)
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=613697
Gerd Hoffmann kraxel@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(kraxel@redhat.com | |) |
--- Comment #3 from Gerd Hoffmann kraxel@redhat.com 2010-07-13 05:35:45 EDT --- Oops, picked wrong package when copying the link. Actually both src and binary package are there. Uploaded new revision 2 packages and updates spec file to the same location:
http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libogg/
Documentation is removed there as it is redundant with the native package.
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=613697
Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2010-07-13 06:41:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3)
Oops, picked wrong package when copying the link. Actually both src and binary package are there. Uploaded new revision 2 packages and updates spec file to the same location:
http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libogg/
Documentation is removed there as it is redundant with the native package.
Agreed.
The updated package fixes the only issue I found in the main review.
This package is APPROVED by rjones.
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=613697
Gerd Hoffmann kraxel@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Gerd Hoffmann kraxel@redhat.com 2010-07-13 07:02:57 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-libogg Short Description: The Ogg bitstream file format library Owners: kraxel Branches: InitialCC:
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=613697
--- Comment #6 from Tom "spot" Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com 2010-07-13 11:41:29 EDT --- CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
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=613697
Gerd Hoffmann kraxel@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #7 from Gerd Hoffmann kraxel@redhat.com 2010-07-14 12:03:59 EDT --- rawhide builds are done.
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=613697
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mihai@limbasan.ro
--- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com 2010-10-25 07:15:08 EDT --- *** Bug 529548 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org