September 2010 - mingw - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 633058] Review Request: mingw32-gdk-pixbuf - MinGW Windows GDK Pixbuf library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=633058 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2010-09-17 07:48:54 EDT --- Thanks for the quick review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-gdk-pixbuf Short Description: MinGW Windows GDK Pixbuf library Owners: epienbro rjones sailer Branches: f14 el6 InitialCC: -- 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.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 633058] Review Request: mingw32-gdk-pixbuf - MinGW Windows GDK Pixbuf library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=633058 Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-17 07:19:22 EDT --- # rpmlint src/mingw32-gdk-pixbuf-2.21.7-1.fc15.src.rpm mingw32-gdk-pixbuf.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %{_mingw32_debug_package} mingw32-gdk-pixbuf.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mingw -> mingy, mingle, Mingus 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # rpmlint noarch/mingw32-gdk-pixbuf-2.21.7-1.fc15.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Warnings can be ignored, the spell error is bogous and the macro isn't defined due to the mingw32 packages on my system not being cutting edge. ------------------------------------------------------------------- # md5sum gdk-pixbuf-2.21.7.tar.bz2* 341ef6c8870fddb411f8bb24b9fb638b gdk-pixbuf-2.21.7.tar.bz2 341ef6c8870fddb411f8bb24b9fb638b gdk-pixbuf-2.21.7.tar.bz2.fetched -------------------------------------------------------------------- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. OK - see above for the output MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK - LGPLv2+ MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. OK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK - see above for the md5sums MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. OK MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. OK - mingw32 exception, no need to run ldconfig MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. OK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations) OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK - docs are in the native package MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK - mingw32 exception MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. OK MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. OK - mingw32 exception MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK - mingw32 exception, .la files are needed here MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, ... OK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. ... OK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. OK - builds fine in rawhide SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. OK - noarch package ;) SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. OK - no scriptlets SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. OK SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. OK SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. OK - docs are in the native package. APPROVED -- 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.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 613993] Review Request: mingw32-celt051 - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=613993 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-09-17 07:13:44 EDT --- mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3-3.fc14 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 14. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3-3.fc14 -- 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.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 613993] Review Request: mingw32-celt051 - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=613993 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- 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.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 614047] Review Request: mingw32-spice-protocol - Spice protocol header files

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=614047 --- Comment #6 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> 2010-09-16 18:56:11 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 613993] Review Request: mingw32-celt051 - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=613993 --- Comment #8 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> 2010-09-16 18:55:29 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 633058] Review Request: mingw32-gdk-pixbuf - MinGW Windows GDK Pixbuf library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=633058 Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |kraxel(a)redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |kraxel(a)redhat.com -- 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.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 614047] Review Request: mingw32-spice-protocol - Spice protocol header files

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=614047 Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-16 07:57:18 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-spice-protocol Short Description: Spice protocol header files Owners: kraxel Branches: f14 InitialCC: -- 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.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 613993] Review Request: mingw32-celt051 - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=613993 Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-16 07:55:47 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-celt051 Short Description: An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication Owners: kraxel Branches: f14 InitialCC: -- 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.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 613993] Review Request: mingw32-celt051 - An audio codec for use in low-delay speech and audio communication

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=613993 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl> 2010-09-12 13:44:28 EDT --- $ rpmlint mingw32-celt051.spec mingw32-celt051.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean mingw32-celt051.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag mingw32-celt051.spec: W: no-%clean-section 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. $ rpmlint mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3-3.fc14.src.rpm mingw32-celt051.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> cosec, codex, code mingw32-celt051.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> cosec, codex, code mingw32-celt051.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time mingw32-celt051.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> codes, coders, code's mingw32-celt051.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean mingw32-celt051.src: W: no-buildroot-tag mingw32-celt051.src: W: no-%clean-section 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. $ rpmlint mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3-3.fc14.noarch.rpm mingw32-celt051.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> cosec, codex, code mingw32-celt051.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codec -> cosec, codex, code mingw32-celt051.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US realtime -> mealtime, real time, real-time mingw32-celt051.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codecs -> codes, coders, code's 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. All these rpmlint warnings can be ignored $ rpmquery --requires mingw32-celt051 pkgconfig mingw32-libogg rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 mingw32-filesystem >= 57 mingw32-runtime mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libcelt051-0.dll) mingw32(libogg-0.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(user32.dll) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 $ rpmquery --provides mingw32-celt051 mingw32(libcelt051-0.dll) mingw32-celt051 = 0.5.1.3-3.fc14 $ rpmquery --fileprovide mingw32-celt051 /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/celtdec051.exe /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/celtenc051.exe /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/bin/libcelt051-0.dll /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/celt051 /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/celt051/celt.h /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/celt051/celt_header.h /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/celt051/celt_types.h /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libcelt051.dll.a /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libcelt051.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/celt051.pc /usr/share/doc/mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3 /usr/share/doc/mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3/COPYING /usr/share/doc/mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3/README /usr/share/doc/mingw32-celt051-0.5.1.3/TODO $ curl http://downloads.us.xiph.org/releases/celt/celt-0.5.1.3.tar.gz | md5sum % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 430k 100 430k 0 0 176k 0 0:00:02 0:00:02 --:--:-- 308k 67e7b5e45db57a6f1f0a6962f5ecb190 - $ md5sum celt-0.5.1.3.tar.gz 67e7b5e45db57a6f1f0a6962f5ecb190 celt-0.5.1.3.tar.gz Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2463137 + OK ! Needs to be looked into / Not applicable * Overridden by MinGW guidelines [+] Files are installed in /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw [+] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= xx is in the .spec file [+] Requires are OK [+] BuildArch: noarch [+] No man pages or info files [+] default strip and objdump commands are overridden with mingw32 specific ones [+] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [/] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. [/] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [*] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [/] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines . [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [/] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [*] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [/] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [+] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [*] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [*] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [*] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [/] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [/] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [/] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [/] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [*] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. [/] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. ===================================================== The package mingw32-celt051 is APPROVED by epienbro ===================================================== PS. Could you please review mingw32-gdk-pixbuf in return? It's required to build the latest ming32-gtk2. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633058 -- 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.

13 years, 7 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw September 2010