mingw January 2011

mingw@lists.fedoraproject.org

12 participants
65 discussions

[Bug 634621] Review Request: mingw32-qpid-cpp - MinGW Windows AMQP daemons and libraries
by Red Hat Bugzilla 05 Jan '11

05 Jan '11

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=634621 --- Comment #9 from Lon Hohberger <lhh(a)redhat.com> 2011-01-05 16:52:20 EST --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. Done, See comment #3. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . PASS, however, note that the package is prefixed with "mingw32-" consistent with other packages destined for use in the MinGW environment. MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. PASS; matches. MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. PASS; License is ASL 2.0 MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. PASS; verified from upstream tarball. 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. PASS; LICENSE / notice is included in %doc in the current spec file noted in comment #1. MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. PASS MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. PASS MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. PASS; verified with sha256sum: http://people.apache.org/~robbie/qpid/0.8/RC3/qpid-0.8.tar.gz 970755a17a16e4ad879c7529f648266e9667db54944f55b1f66f96497412dd37 against Andrew's source rpm: 970755a17a16e4ad879c7529f648266e9667db54944f55b1f66f96497412dd37 MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. PASS; package compiles in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2703449 MUST: If the package does not successfully compile... PASS MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except... PASS. MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. PASS / N/A. Package has no locale data. 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. PASS / N/A. MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. PASS MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable... N/A MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. PASS MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. PASS; see build output 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. PASS; only one files section and no duplicate files reported during build MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. PASS MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. PASS; package contains source code. MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. N/A MUST: If a package includes something as %doc ... PASS MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. PASS - EXCEPTION: mingw32 development-oriented packages apparently are not required to meed this criteria. Libraries, development libraries, and headers were all in a single package. (Ex: mingw32-qt, mingw32-tk) MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. PASS - EXCEPTION: mingw32 development-oriented packages apparently are not required to meet this criteria. Libraries, development libraries, and headers were all in a single package. (Ex: mingw32-qt, mingw32-tk) 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. PASS - EXCEPTION: mingw32 development-oriented packages apparently are not required to meet this criteria. Libraries, development libraries, and headers were all in a single package. (Ex: mingw32-qt, mingw32-tk) MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages... PASS; no -devel package. MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. PASS; no .la libtool archives. MUST: Packages containing GUI applications. PASS; no GUI application; this is a development library. MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. PASS MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. PASS SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s)... PASS SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. None are available at this time. SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Koji implies mock. SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Koji. SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. No Windows environment available during review. SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. N/A; No scriptlets are used. SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require... N/A; No subpackages. SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) N/A 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. N/A SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. WARN: Missing a couple of man pages. -- 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.

1 0

[Bug 634621] Review Request: mingw32-qpid-cpp - MinGW Windows AMQP daemons and libraries
by Red Hat Bugzilla 05 Jan '11

05 Jan '11

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=634621 Andrew Beekhof <andrew(a)beekhof.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|andrew(a)beekhof.net |lhh(a)redhat.com --- Comment #8 from Andrew Beekhof <andrew(a)beekhof.net> 2011-01-05 15:09:38 EST --- Lon, apparently comment #4 was insufficient. -- 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.

1 0

[Bug 634621] Review Request: mingw32-qpid-cpp - MinGW Windows AMQP daemons and libraries
by Red Hat Bugzilla 05 Jan '11

05 Jan '11

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=634621 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs- --- Comment #7 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2011-01-05 11:06:44 EST --- A few problems here: I don't see any review at all. The ticket is assigned to the person who owns the package. It should be assigned to the reviewer. Whoever actually reviewed this, please assign the ticket to yourself and provide some proper review. -- 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.

1 0

[Bug 634621] Review Request: mingw32-qpid-cpp - MinGW Windows AMQP daemons and libraries
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Jan '11

04 Jan '11

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=634621 Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Group|windriver | -- 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.

1 0

[Bug 553971] installers created with makensis don't show bitmaps
by Red Hat Bugzilla 03 Jan '11

03 Jan '11

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=553971 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> 2011-01-03 12:33:05 EST --- mingw32-nsis-2.46-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw January 2011