January 2014 - mingw - Fedora mailing-lists

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045561 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala <huzaifas(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|impact=moderate,public=2013 |impact=low,public=20131219, |1219,reported=20131220,sour |reported=20131220,source=su |ce=suse,cvss2=4.3/AV:N/AC:M |se,cvss2=4.3/AV:N/AC:M/Au:N |/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:P,fedora-20 |/C:N/I:N/A:P,fedora-20/libp |/libpng=affected,fedora-19/ |ng=affected,fedora-19/libpn |libpng=affected,fedora-20/l |g=affected,fedora-20/libpng |ibpng15=affected,fedora-all |15=affected,fedora-all/libp |/libpng12=affected,fedora-a |ng12=affected,fedora-all/li |ll/libpng10=affected,fedora |bpng10=affected,fedora-19/m |-19/mingw-libpng=affected,f |ingw-libpng=affected,fedora |edora-20/mingw-libpng=affec |-20/mingw-libpng=affected,e |ted,epel-all/mingw32-libpng |pel-all/mingw32-libpng=affe |=affected,epel-6/libpng10=a |cted,epel-6/libpng10=affect |ffected,rhel-5/libpng=affec |ed,rhel-5/libpng=affected,r |ted,rhel-6/libpng=affected, |hel-6/libpng=affected,rhel- |rhel-7/libpng=affected,rhel |7/libpng=affected,rhel-7/li |-7/libpng12=affected |bpng12=affected --- Comment #13 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala <huzaifas(a)redhat.com> --- Statement: This issue affects the version of libpng as shipped with Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 and 6. The Red Hat Security Response Team has rated this issue as having low security impact. A future update may address this issue. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KNI8MMX5wa&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045561 --- Comment #12 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala <huzaifas(a)redhat.com> --- Created libpng15 tracking bugs for this issue: Affects: fedora-20 [bug 1056855] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JtmQ5UxFdG&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045561 --- Comment #11 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala <huzaifas(a)redhat.com> --- Created libpng12 tracking bugs for this issue: Affects: fedora-all [bug 1056856] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xfq5v3HyEw&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045561 --- Comment #10 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala <huzaifas(a)redhat.com> --- Created libpng10 tracking bugs for this issue: Affects: fedora-all [bug 1056857] Affects: epel-6 [bug 1056861] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7YecTx1SUm&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045561 --- Comment #9 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala <huzaifas(a)redhat.com> --- Created libpng tracking bugs for this issue: Affects: fedora-20 [bug 1056853] Affects: fedora-19 [bug 1056854] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MI9ilzDwpK&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045561 --- Comment #8 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala <huzaifas(a)redhat.com> --- Created mingw32-libpng tracking bugs for this issue: Affects: epel-all [bug 1056860] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=l2ajBPwf1Q&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045561 --- Comment #7 from Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala <huzaifas(a)redhat.com> --- Created mingw-libpng tracking bugs for this issue: Affects: fedora-19 [bug 1056858] Affects: fedora-20 [bug 1056859] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QaMqDi7i9c&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045561 Huzaifa S. Sidhpurwala <huzaifas(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1056853 Depends On| |1056854 Depends On| |1056855 Depends On| |1056856 Depends On| |1056857 Depends On| |1056858 Depends On| |1056859 Depends On| |1056860 Depends On| |1056861 Depends On| |1056863 Depends On| |1056864 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056853 [Bug 1056853] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette [fedora-20] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056854 [Bug 1056854] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette [fedora-19] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056855 [Bug 1056855] CVE-2013-6954 libpng15: libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette [fedora-20] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056856 [Bug 1056856] CVE-2013-6954 libpng12: libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette [fedora-all] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056857 [Bug 1056857] CVE-2013-6954 libpng10: libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette [fedora-all] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056858 [Bug 1056858] CVE-2013-6954 mingw-libpng: libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette [fedora-19] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056859 [Bug 1056859] CVE-2013-6954 mingw-libpng: libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette [fedora-20] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056860 [Bug 1056860] CVE-2013-6954 mingw32-libpng: libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette [epel-all] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1056861 [Bug 1056861] CVE-2013-6954 libpng10: libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette [epel-6] -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cmiYVfCPoy&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

1 0

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

1 0

[Bug 858070] New: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtmultimedia - Qt5 for Windows - QtMultimedia component
by Red Hat Bugzilla 22 Jan '14

22 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858070 Bug ID: 858070 QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org Severity: unspecified Version: rawhide Priority: unspecified CC: fedora-mingw(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, notting(a)redhat.com, package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: mingw-qt5-qtmultimedia - Qt5 for Windows - QtMultimedia component Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Unspecified Reporter: erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl Type: Bug Documentation: --- Hardware: Unspecified Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora Spec URL: http://svn.openftd.org/svn/fedora_cross/mingw-qt5-qtmultimedia/mingw-qt5-qt… SRPM URL: http://ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw-qt5-qtmultimedia-5.0.0-0.1.beta1.fc17.src… Fedora Account System Username: epienbro Description: This package contains the Qt software toolkit for developing cross-platform applications. This is the Windows version of Qt, for use in conjunction with the Fedora Windows cross-compiler. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 23

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 21 Jan '14

21 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045561 John Trowbridge <jtrowbri(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jtrowbri(a)redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nWJiiafwVW&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 957346] Review Request: mingw-physfs - MinGW compiled physfs library to provide abstract access to various archives
by Red Hat Bugzilla 21 Jan '14

21 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957346 --- Comment #6 from Marcel Wysocki <maci(a)satgnu.net> --- anything still blocking this? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yhpL2dE1dS&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

boost asio library
by Ed Beroset 19 Jan '14

19 Jan '14

I've developed software that uses the boost asio (asynchronous serial I/O) library and would like to use mingw to create a Windows port of it. There doesn't currently seem to be support for it. Am I overlooking it? If it matters, I'm using Fedora 20. Ed

2 2

Broken dependencies: mingw32-libpng
by Fedora Koji Build System 18 Jan '14

18 Jan '14

mingw32-libpng has broken dependencies in the epel-6 tree: On ppc64: mingw32-libpng-1.2.37-3.el6.noarch requires mingw32-runtime mingw32-libpng-1.2.37-3.el6.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:63 mingw32-libpng-1.2.37-3.el6.noarch requires mingw32(zlib1.dll) mingw32-libpng-1.2.37-3.el6.noarch requires mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32-libpng-1.2.37-3.el6.noarch requires mingw32(kernel32.dll) Please resolve this as soon as possible.

1 0

Broken dependencies: mingw32-libpng
by Fedora Koji Build System 18 Jan '14

18 Jan '14

mingw32-libpng has broken dependencies in the epel-6 tree: On ppc64: mingw32-libpng-1.2.37-3.el6.noarch requires mingw32-runtime mingw32-libpng-1.2.37-3.el6.noarch requires mingw32-filesystem >= 0:63 mingw32-libpng-1.2.37-3.el6.noarch requires mingw32(zlib1.dll) mingw32-libpng-1.2.37-3.el6.noarch requires mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32-libpng-1.2.37-3.el6.noarch requires mingw32(kernel32.dll) Please resolve this as soon as possible.

1 0

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045561 qushanshan <squ(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |squ(a)redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nthGMCGXpr&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1045561] CVE-2013-6954 libpng: unhandled zero-length PLTE chunk or NULL palette
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1045561 --- Comment #1 from Petr Hracek <phracek(a)redhat.com> --- In Fedora we have currently libpng 1.6.8. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033049 When the BZ for RHEL7 and older will be created than libpng will be patched. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vkpLRhE5Ob&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-c-ares-1.10.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jaY8QdRSSM&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049547] Review Request: mingw-ilmbase - MinGW Windows ilmbase library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-ilmbase-2.1.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LJC3QNOLem&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-libmng-2.0.2-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Gq72nV70UR&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049549] Review Request: mingw-OpenEXR - MinGW Windows OpenEXR library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-OpenEXR-2.1.0-2.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6BHxNsn5QU&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-flac-1.3.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mVsYYxopCZ&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jan '14

16 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=DqhmosTaLo&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049546] Review Request: mingw-freeimage - MinGW Windows freeimage library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 15 Jan '14

15 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049546 --- Comment #8 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Ok here we are! Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-freeimage.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-freeimage-3.15.4-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yi2JsA6zAe&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049546] Review Request: mingw-freeimage - MinGW Windows freeimage library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049546 --- Comment #7 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Both the JPEGTransform functions as well as the G3 plugin are disabled in the native 3.10.0 as well, so there is no difference from that point of view. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SFMBqQCOHi&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049546] Review Request: mingw-freeimage - MinGW Windows freeimage library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049546 --- Comment #6 from Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) <yselkowitz(a)cygwin.com> --- So, until that can be fixed, would it not be better to use a fully-featured 3.10.0 than a crippled 3.15.4? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=REKN392r4E&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mYSzeEwEov&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049546] Review Request: mingw-freeimage - MinGW Windows freeimage library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049546 --- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Because they added new stuff in 3.15.4 which makes it impossible to do so unfortunately. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7ltS2boEU4&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049546] Review Request: mingw-freeimage - MinGW Windows freeimage library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049546 Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) <yselkowitz(a)cygwin.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |yselkowitz(a)cygwin.com --- Comment #4 from Yaakov (Cygwin Ports) <yselkowitz(a)cygwin.com> --- I don't understand; why can't you use the patches in the native freeimage-3.10.0 which avoid bundled libraries without disabling features? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=f3Bke8ubGC&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049549] Review Request: mingw-OpenEXR - MinGW Windows OpenEXR library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-OpenEXR-2.1.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-OpenEXR-2.1.0-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=srLBR7ctmW&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049549] Review Request: mingw-OpenEXR - MinGW Windows OpenEXR library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-OpenEXR-2.1.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-OpenEXR-2.1.0-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Vx2EEaLa5n&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049549] Review Request: mingw-OpenEXR - MinGW Windows OpenEXR library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1WsBoO2oRY&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049546] Review Request: mingw-freeimage - MinGW Windows freeimage library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049546 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Thanks a lot for your effort into this. I agree with you that having bundled libraries is very maintainer-unfriendly, and I guess disabling the features to get around the bundling requirement is a very valid approach. I'll update the package tomorrow and post back. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LwSyE0J0cy&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=j5noUzxmm9&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=5Z783CesqK&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-libmng-2.0.2-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-libmng-2.0.2-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QuBDRWHPEP&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-libmng-2.0.2-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-libmng-2.0.2-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JlrPlDpZws&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MHU6PbZvXq&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049547] Review Request: mingw-ilmbase - MinGW Windows ilmbase library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-ilmbase-2.1.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-ilmbase-2.1.0-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=znvuJPPmFP&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049547] Review Request: mingw-ilmbase - MinGW Windows ilmbase library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-ilmbase-2.1.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-ilmbase-2.1.0-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TpRUvemJIo&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049547] Review Request: mingw-ilmbase - MinGW Windows ilmbase library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=neQZTNuTmg&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-c-ares-1.10.0-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-c-ares-1.10.0-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BwTqpug7SD&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-c-ares-1.10.0-2.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-c-ares-1.10.0-2.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=khzi5rl0Wt&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=45fKAg8Sew&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-flac-1.3.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-flac-1.3.0-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=4jT6bVtFf9&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- mingw-flac-1.3.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-flac-1.3.0-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VXiMgB8GYQ&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IkljO7ky9K&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049546] Review Request: mingw-freeimage - MinGW Windows freeimage library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049546 František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz --- Comment #2 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- Quick peek at libtiff package uncovers following CVEs: CVE-2012-4447 CVE-2012-4564 CVE-2013-1960 CVE-2013-1961 CVE-2013-4231 CVE-2013-4232 CVE-2013-4244 and anothers are upcoming. Even with exception from FPC, it would be quite hard to maintain this... But, in the original patch of native freeimage, bundling of libjpeg and libtiff is solved (or rather worked around): JPEG transformation functions are simply disabled, libtiff needs some patch and disabling G3 (fax). I've looked at your patch and combined it with the current freeimage patch and updated, and here are the results: http://scientific.zcu.cz/git/?p=FreeImage.git;a=summary Or one tarball with the patches: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/freeimage-3.5.14/patches.tar.gz - it looks like libmng dependency is not needed anymore - convert newlines before patching is very good idea :-) - separated patches could be good for future maintenance, but that's up to packagers and co-maintainers of course - main problem now is testing (it could help to push the patches to native freeimage package...) Frantisek -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2UbA4wBWG7&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TgpW3zSvRb&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=yAcYK2diNR&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iSMJ1glfRN&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=63K3uaWB27&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049549] Review Request: mingw-OpenEXR - MinGW Windows OpenEXR library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BTCZUGblFN&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049549] Review Request: mingw-OpenEXR - MinGW Windows OpenEXR library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dFUCGvR7U4&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nZcDVnxv0R&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BnkGKZfs3r&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049549] Review Request: mingw-OpenEXR - MinGW Windows OpenEXR library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw-OpenEXR Short Description: MinGW Windows OpenEXR library Owners: smani Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ZLgncwL6yf&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049549] Review Request: mingw-OpenEXR - MinGW Windows OpenEXR library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- I'm sorry, I overlooked one more check: [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/OpenEXR(mingw32-OpenEXR, mingw32-ilmbase), /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/OpenEXR(mingw64-OpenEXR, mingw64-ilmbase) Because mingw32/64-OpenEXR already depends on mingw32/64-ilmbase which provide the directories, they can removed from the listing in the packages: %dir %{mingw64_includedir}/OpenEXR %dir %{mingw32_includedir}/OpenEXR Full report: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/OpenEXR(mingw32-OpenEXR, mingw32-ilmbase), /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/OpenEXR(mingw64-OpenEXR, mingw64-ilmbase) [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines It's the mentioned directory confict */include/OpenEXR. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-OpenEXR-2.1.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw32-OpenEXR-static-2.1.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw32-OpenEXR-tools-2.1.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-OpenEXR-2.1.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-OpenEXR-static-2.1.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-OpenEXR-tools-2.1.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw-OpenEXR-2.1.0-2.fc21.src.rpm mingw32-OpenEXR-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-OpenEXR-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-OpenEXR-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-OpenEXR-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw-OpenEXR.src: W: file-size-mismatch openexr-2.1.0.tar.gz = 13680959, http://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/openexr/openexr-2.1.0.tar.gz = 13680816 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mingw64-OpenEXR-tools mingw32-OpenEXR-tools mingw32-OpenEXR mingw64-OpenEXR-static mingw64-OpenEXR mingw32-OpenEXR-st atic mingw64-OpenEXR-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-OpenEXR-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-OpenEXR-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-OpenEXR-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mingw64-OpenEXR-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libhalf-11.dll) mingw64(libiex-2_1-11.dll) mingw64(libilmimf-imf_2_1-21.dll) mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64-OpenEXR mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw32-OpenEXR-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(libhalf-11.dll) mingw32(libiex-2_1-11.dll) mingw32(libilmimf-imf_2_1-21.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32-OpenEXR mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-OpenEXR (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(libhalf-11.dll) mingw32(libiex-2_1-11.dll) mingw32(libilmthread-2_1-11.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(user32.dll) mingw32(zlib1.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config mingw64-OpenEXR-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64-OpenEXR mingw64-OpenEXR (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libhalf-11.dll) mingw64(libiex-2_1-11.dll) mingw64(libilmthread-2_1-11.dll) mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(user32.dll) mingw64(zlib1.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config mingw32-OpenEXR-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32-OpenEXR Provides -------- mingw64-OpenEXR-tools: mingw64-OpenEXR-tools mingw32-OpenEXR-tools: mingw32-OpenEXR-tools mingw32-OpenEXR: mingw32(libilmimf-imf_2_1-21.dll) mingw32-OpenEXR mingw64-OpenEXR-static: mingw64-OpenEXR-static mingw64-OpenEXR: mingw64(libilmimf-imf_2_1-21.dll) mingw64-OpenEXR mingw32-OpenEXR-static: mingw32-OpenEXR-static Source checksums ---------------- http://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/openexr/openexr-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a2bc21dea9dc4d472a8faa77e52eb627ea321c7ee4abab3d6d1a634c379b630b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 54486b454073c1dcb5ae9892cf0f730ffefe62f38176325281505093fd218a14 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1049549 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -L /home/valtri/fedora-scm/REPO Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Built with local dependencies: /home/valtri/fedora-scm/REPO/mingw-ilmbase-2.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm /home/valtri/fedora-scm/REPO/mingw32-ilmbase-debuginfo-2.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm /home/valtri/fedora-scm/REPO/mingw64-ilmbase-static-2.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm /home/valtri/fedora-scm/REPO/mingw64-ilmbase-2.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm /home/valtri/fedora-scm/REPO/mingw32-ilmbase-static-2.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm /home/valtri/fedora-scm/REPO/mingw32-ilmbase-2.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm /home/valtri/fedora-scm/REPO/mingw64-ilmbase-debuginfo-2.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm ====== Package APPROVED! The directories can be removed from the listing post-review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hBsyjlD9jP&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw-LibRaw Short Description: MinGW Windows LibRaw library Owners: smani Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=to0GJY6Xpy&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 44 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 327680 bytes in 12 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw32-LibRaw-static-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw32-LibRaw-tools-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-LibRaw-static-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-LibRaw-tools-0.15.4-4.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc21.src.rpm mingw32-LibRaw.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw32-LibRaw/LICENSE.LGPL mingw32-LibRaw-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-LibRaw-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-LibRaw.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw64-LibRaw/LICENSE.LGPL mingw64-LibRaw-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-LibRaw-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw-LibRaw.src: W: file-size-mismatch LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL3-0.15.4.tar.gz = 38196, http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL3-0.15.4.tar.gz = 38186 mingw-LibRaw.src: W: file-size-mismatch LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL2-0.15.4.tar.gz = 31271, http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL2-0.15.4.tar.gz = 31118 mingw-LibRaw.src: W: file-size-mismatch LibRaw-0.15.4.tar.gz = 1427757, http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-0.15.4.tar.gz = 1439235 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mingw32-LibRaw-tools mingw64-LibRaw-tools mingw32-LibRaw mingw64-LibRaw-static mingw64-LibRaw mingw32-LibRaw-static mingw32-LibRaw-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-LibRaw-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-LibRaw.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw32-LibRaw/LICENSE.LGPL mingw64-LibRaw-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-LibRaw.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw64-LibRaw/LICENSE.LGPL mingw32-LibRaw-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mingw32-LibRaw-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(libraw-9.dll) mingw32(libraw_r-9.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(libwinpthread-1.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(wsock32.dll) mingw32-LibRaw mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw64-LibRaw-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libraw-9.dll) mingw64(libraw_r-9.dll) mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw64(libwinpthread-1.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(wsock32.dll) mingw64-LibRaw mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw32-LibRaw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(libjasper-1.dll) mingw32(libjpeg-62.dll) mingw32(liblcms2-2.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(wsock32.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config mingw64-LibRaw-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64-LibRaw mingw64-LibRaw (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libjasper-1.dll) mingw64(libjpeg-62.dll) mingw64(liblcms2-2.dll) mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(wsock32.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config mingw32-LibRaw-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32-LibRaw Provides -------- mingw32-LibRaw-tools: mingw32-LibRaw-tools mingw64-LibRaw-tools: mingw64-LibRaw-tools mingw32-LibRaw: mingw32(libraw-9.dll) mingw32(libraw_r-9.dll) mingw32-LibRaw mingw64-LibRaw-static: mingw64-LibRaw-static mingw64-LibRaw: mingw64(libraw-9.dll) mingw64(libraw_r-9.dll) mingw64-LibRaw mingw32-LibRaw-static: mingw32-LibRaw-static Source checksums ---------------- http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL3-0.15.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1868c252ae0fc67d5a06862d93119f818a9208eef93f0e7832f6112ac6ef208a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : be2440dabb7df46aa22de10b96d5e3cc7b2eb006ae491e7598611f11aba4dfe0 http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-0.15.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b3fcfee33bc34ae5869a9741880e28a62f029f196cb1d1a007ab156f4a110f79 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8d3a164674acfe6ff7164ab60397242c6e3144912fda7fa792c250c280e70746 http://www.libraw.org/data/LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL2-0.15.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4c4dc9328edab4af6af7a76ea24c91c81b8181ec347016ea4697fb67c34678ba CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5413e1e3283f356142b8a88492ace3c80e5c6837074c04109186f58e81837609 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1049550 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ==== Package APPROVED! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=y48KLJ24QT&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049549] Review Request: mingw-OpenEXR - MinGW Windows OpenEXR library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-OpenEXR.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-OpenEXR-2.1.0-2.fc21.src.rpm * Tue Jan 14 2014 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> - 2.1.0-2 - Add LICENSE to doc - Add patch to replace obsolete configure.ac macros -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=o9dO6mt0BD&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 971115] Review Request: mingw-lzma-sdk457 - SDK for lzma compression
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971115 Marcel Wysocki <maci(a)satgnu.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CANTFIX Last Closed| |2014-01-14 04:56:04 --- Comment #3 from Marcel Wysocki <maci(a)satgnu.net> --- this will never work properly, its old and everything. xz implements lzma -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=NbSPHqeQoX&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 --- Comment #5 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Oh whoops... Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-LibRaw.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-LibRaw-0.15.4-4.fc21.src.rpm * Tue Jan 14 2014 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> - 0.15.4-4 - Actually remove executable permissions from the problematic LICENSE files -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7IbHBY89PU&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw-c-ares Short Description: Library for asynchronous DNS operations Owners: valtri Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=vcaOHZkC0P&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '14

14 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw-flac Short Description: Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec Owners: valtri Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LvWNcNxLOo&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 --- Comment #4 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3) > Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-LibRaw.spec > SRPM URL: > http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-LibRaw-0.15.4-3.fc21.src.rpm > > * Mon Jan 13 2014 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> - 0.15.4-3 > - Add patch to replace obsolete configure.ac macros > - Remove executable permissions from LICENSE files > Oops, they still have executable permissions. The problematic ones are the licenses in the main LibRaw tarball (LICENSE.CDDL and LICENSE.LGPL). > > About 6): Yes, true. I guess I adopted it since many other packages adopted > that description too. Thing is now basically all my mingw packages use that > description line... But if one day I feel particularly motivated, I'll fix > them ;) Absolutely, not needed to change it and have it different from all other packages. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=HVeH0wczT0&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049549] Review Request: mingw-OpenEXR - MinGW Windows OpenEXR library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 --- Comment #1 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- Found issues: 1) the LICENSE file is missing in the result packages 2) main description: missing dot at the end :-) 3) the find command could be better written (cosmetic): find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete 4) obsolete m4 macros AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: openexr-2.1.0/configure.ac:30 AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: openexr-2.1.0/configure.ac:14 Only the first one is required. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Ih22zmpura&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-LibRaw.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-LibRaw-0.15.4-3.fc21.src.rpm * Mon Jan 13 2014 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> - 0.15.4-3 - Add patch to replace obsolete configure.ac macros - Remove executable permissions from LICENSE files About 6): Yes, true. I guess I adopted it since many other packages adopted that description too. Thing is now basically all my mingw packages use that description line... But if one day I feel particularly motivated, I'll fix them ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=jmFHPS5Zb9&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049549] Review Request: mingw-OpenEXR - MinGW Windows OpenEXR library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FVreg1X15N&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TXibQzn7dg&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=R6TIzyN7kN&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049547] Review Request: mingw-ilmbase - MinGW Windows ilmbase library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wTOpXKElVH&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049547] Review Request: mingw-ilmbase - MinGW Windows ilmbase library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 13 Jan '14

13 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QaPnlEJEbN&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 --- Comment #2 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- My observations: 1) using obsolete m4 macros in upstream (https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools) AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: LibRaw-0.15.4/configure.ac:10 It could be worth to let upstream know about it, and/or patch it locally. But it is just extra check and it is not required to fix that. 2) deleting of the .la files would be better written: find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete But that's only cosmetic and not needed. 3) incorrect FSF address in LGPL license file No action is required for the package. It would be good to let upstream know about it. 4) executable bit in permissions of LICENSE.CDDL, LICENSE.LGPL 5) the file sizes and content mismatch LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL3-0.15.4.tar.gz and LibRaw-demosaic-pack-GPL2-0.15.4.tar.gz are OK (archive differs, but content is the same). LibRaw-0.15.4.tar.gz has different event content. I guess we can't do anything about it and it is not needed. Just keeping the sources the same as in native LibRaw package (as they already are)? 6) Btw. the "MinGW" means "Minimalist GNU Windows". The text "MinGW Windows %{pkgname} library" has de facto two "Windows" words. Maybe replace the "Windows" by "Win32"/"Win64"? Or there is used text "MinGW compiled example library for the Win32 target" in guidelines example... I think only "4)" is necessary to fix. The remaining issues are for considering. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fGzyOTmfWJ&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 --- Comment #5 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- Thanks! Patches got into upstream (by Miroslav Lichvar), so I'll add there comments: # https://git.xiph.org/?p=flac.git;a=commitdiff;h=606fdfcaece19d3e05434bde57c… Patch1: flac-metaflac_strcat.patch # https://git.xiph.org/?p=flac.git;a=commitdiff;h=4eab6313cd2198b5647d925bdb3… Patch2: flac-no_rice_asm.patch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EA9tAa2v8N&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 964437] Review Request: mingw-portmidi - Real-time Midi I/O Library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964437 --- Comment #6 from Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael(a)gmx.net> --- Has anything been tried meanwhile? Has the Fedora MinGW SIG been contacted yet? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gCgMDZ3bWl&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw-libmng Short Description: MinGW Windows libmng library Owners: smani Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0JGeinChgJ&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- Good work! Package approved. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=SPZznwBVzH&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- All fine, just one little thing: you should add comments for the patches (i.e." Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.") Approved! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Public domain", "ISC", "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later)". 18 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sandro/.Data/Desktop/1051836-mingw-flac/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 184320 bytes in 12 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32-flac , mingw64-flac [?]: Package functions as described. [?]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: mingw64-flac : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/flac++.pc mingw64-flac : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32 /sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/flac.pc mingw32-flac : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/flac++.pc mingw32-flac : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/flac.pc [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-flac-1.3.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-flac-1.3.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw-flac-1.3.0-1.fc21.src.rpm mingw32-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, loveless mingw32-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metaflac -> metacarpal mingw32-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal mingw64-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, loveless mingw64-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metaflac -> metacarpal mingw64-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal mingw-flac.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, loveless mingw-flac.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metaflac -> metacarpal mingw-flac.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mingw64-flac mingw32-flac mingw64-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, loveless mingw64-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metaflac -> metacarpal mingw64-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal mingw32-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lossless -> loss less, loss-less, loveless mingw32-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metaflac -> metacarpal mingw32-flac.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mingw64-flac (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libflac-8.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libogg-0.dll) mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config mingw32-flac (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libflac-8.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(libogg-0.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config Provides -------- mingw64-flac: mingw64(libflac++-6.dll) mingw64(libflac-8.dll) mingw64-flac mingw32-flac: mingw32(libflac++-6.dll) mingw32(libflac-8.dll) mingw32-flac Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/flac/flac-1.3.0.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fa2d64aac1f77e31dfbb270aeb08f5b32e27036a52ad15e69a77e309528010dc CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fa2d64aac1f77e31dfbb270aeb08f5b32e27036a52ad15e69a77e309528010dc Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1051836 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=81qI6Bjdmn&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049547] Review Request: mingw-ilmbase - MinGW Windows ilmbase library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw-ilmbase Short Description: MinGW Windows ilmbase library Owners: smani Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=YPxEwkssxM&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kX6Ij321tQ&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Spec URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-libmng.spec SRPM URL: http://smani.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw-libmng-2.0.2-2.fc21.src.rpm * Sun Jan 12 2014 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> - 2.0.2-2 - Delete pre-built library - Add patch to fix deprecated configure.ac macro - Only install LICENSE in %%doc -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=1vgPM8IsJa&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 --- Comment #4 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #3) > Concerning the def files, according to [1] one can also generate them from > the dll using pexports. But up to you ;) Approved! > Nice! I'll looks better without the patch. :-) Thank you! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hdiOKbFDoj&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 --- Comment #3 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- Oh, I'm sorry. Fixed URLs: Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/mingw-flac-1.3.0-1/mingw-flac.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/mingw-flac-1.3.0-1/mingw-flac-1.3.0-1.fc21.… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0R9rbLhaLU&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 --- Comment #2 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- The SRPM url points to the noarch rpm. Could you upload the SRPM? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iUPIG0EcPM&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Concerning the def files, according to [1] one can also generate them from the dll using pexports. But up to you ;) Approved! [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-mingw/2009-February/000439… Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: mingw32-c-ares : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/ares.h mingw32-c-ares : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/ares_build.h mingw32-c-ares : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/ares_dns.h mingw32-c-ares : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/ares_rules.h mingw32-c-ares : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/ares_version.h mingw64-c-ares : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/ares.h mingw64-c-ares : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/ares_build.h mingw64-c-ares : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/ares_dns.h mingw64-c-ares : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/ares_rules.h mingw64-c-ares : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/include/ares_version.h See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages - Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if present. Note: Package has .a files: mingw32-c-ares, mingw64-c-ares. Illegal package name: mingw32-c-ares, mingw64-c-ares. Does not provide -static: mingw32-c-ares, mingw64-c-ares. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "ISC", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 73 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sandro/.Data/Desktop/1016887-mingw-c-ares/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mingw32-c-ares , mingw64-c-ares [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: mingw32-c-ares : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libcares.pc mingw64-c-ares : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libcares.pc [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-c-ares-1.10.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-c-ares-1.10.0-2.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw-c-ares-1.10.0-2.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mingw32-c-ares mingw64-c-ares 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mingw32-c-ares (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(advapi32.dll) mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(user32.dll) mingw32(ws2_32.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config mingw64-c-ares (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(advapi32.dll) mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(user32.dll) mingw64(ws2_32.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config Provides -------- mingw32-c-ares: mingw32(libcares-2.dll) mingw32-c-ares mingw64-c-ares: mingw64(libcares-2.dll) mingw64-c-ares Source checksums ---------------- http://c-ares.haxx.se/download/c-ares-1.10.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3d701674615d1158e56a59aaede7891f2dde3da0f46a6d3c684e0ae70f52d3db CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3d701674615d1158e56a59aaede7891f2dde3da0f46a6d3c684e0ae70f52d3db Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1016887 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QMaQPb4A5u&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 --- Comment #2 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #1) > - licensecheck lists MIT, BSD and ISC. Thanks, license fixed and comments added. > > - (Curiosity) Why are you generating and shipping the def file? Some time ago .def files were needed to generate library stubs for M$ Visual C (using its link.exe or lib.exe+link.exe tools), so it's for use-case "pick pre-built dependency libraries from Fedora and use M$VC". But maybe the patching source code because of it is unnecessary complication. :-) New version: Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/mingw-c-ares-1.10.0-2/mingw-c-ares.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/mingw-c-ares-1.10.0-2/mingw-c-ares-1.10.0-2… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=e45253IX9i&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 --- Comment #1 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - using obsolete m4 macros in upstream (https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools) It could be worth to let upstream know about it, and/or patch it locally. But it is just extra check and it is not required to fix that. - deleting of the .la files would be better written: (but that's only cosmetic) find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete - README.* files are not relevant for the final binary package and should be removed (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Documentation) - ./libmng-2.0.2/bcb/win32dll/libmng.dll should be deleted in %prep (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#No_inclusion_of_pre-buil…) ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 84 files have unknown license. xGPL files are not used, the native libmng license is right IMHO. :-) [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 184320 bytes in 22 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines See issues. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-libmng-2.0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw32-libmng-static-2.0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-libmng-2.0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-libmng-static-2.0.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw-libmng-2.0.2-1.fc21.src.rpm mingw32-libmng-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-libmng-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mingw64-libmng-static mingw64-libmng mingw32-libmng-static mingw32-libmng mingw64-libmng-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-libmng-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mingw64-libmng-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64-libmng mingw64-libmng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libjpeg-62.dll) mingw64(liblcms2-2.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(zlib1.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config mingw32-libmng-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32-libmng mingw32-libmng (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libjpeg-62.dll) mingw32(liblcms2-2.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(zlib1.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config Provides -------- mingw64-libmng-static: mingw64-libmng-static mingw64-libmng: mingw64(libmng-2.dll) mingw64-libmng mingw32-libmng-static: mingw32-libmng-static mingw32-libmng: mingw32(libmng-2.dll) mingw32-libmng Source checksums ---------------- http://download.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/libmng/libmng-2.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4908797bb3541fb5cd8fffbe0b1513ed163509f2a4d57a78b26a96f8d1dd05a2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4908797bb3541fb5cd8fffbe0b1513ed163509f2a4d57a78b26a96f8d1dd05a2 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AM_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: libmng-2.0.2/configure.ac:40, libmng-2.0.2/makefiles/configure.ac:40 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1049548 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ==== The first two issues are not required and it' up to you if to change anything. The "README.*" and "libmng.dll" issues should be fixed or discussed. :-) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=w670kxW5N0&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 --- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> --- Looks good! Two comments: - licensecheck lists MIT, BSD and ISC. So I'd suggest License should read: # ares_getopt.c ares_getopt.h are BSD (3 clause) # bitncmp.c inet_net_pton.c inet_ntop.c are ISC # rest is MIT License: MIT and BSD and ISC - (Curiosity) Why are you generating and shipping the def file? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JRaRELSKuw&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1049547] Review Request: mingw-ilmbase - MinGW Windows ilmbase library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547 František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from František Dvořák <valtri(a)civ.zcu.cz> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - using obsolete m4 macros in upstream (https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools) It could be worth to let upstream know about it, and/or patch it locally. But it is just extra check and it is not required. - deleting of the .la files would be better written: (but that's only cosmetic) find %{buildroot} -name '*.la' -delete ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 19 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 10 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. Note: mingw32-ilmbase : /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys- root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/IlmBase.pc mingw64-ilmbase : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/IlmBase.pc [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros Note: Some obsoleted macros found, see the attachment. See: https://fedorahosted.org/FedoraReview/wiki/AutoTools [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mingw32-ilmbase-2.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw32-ilmbase-static-2.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-ilmbase-2.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw64-ilmbase-static-2.1.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm mingw-ilmbase-2.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm mingw32-ilmbase-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-ilmbase-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mingw64-ilmbase-static mingw32-ilmbase-static mingw32-i lmbase mingw64-ilmbase mingw64-ilmbase-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-ilmbase-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mingw64-ilmbase-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64-ilmbase mingw32-ilmbase-static (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32-ilmbase mingw32-ilmbase (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw32(kernel32.dll) mingw32(libgcc_s_sjlj-1.dll) mingw32(libiex-2_1-11.dll) mingw32(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw32(msvcrt.dll) mingw32(user32.dll) mingw32-crt mingw32-filesystem mingw32-pkg-config mingw64-ilmbase (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): mingw64(kernel32.dll) mingw64(libgcc_s_seh-1.dll) mingw64(libiex-2_1-11.dll) mingw64(libstdc++-6.dll) mingw64(msvcrt.dll) mingw64(user32.dll) mingw64-crt mingw64-filesystem mingw64-pkg-config Provides -------- mingw64-ilmbase-static: mingw64-ilmbase-static mingw32-ilmbase-static: mingw32-ilmbase-static mingw32-ilmbase: mingw32(libhalf-11.dll) mingw32(libiex-2_1-11.dll) mingw32(libiexmath-2_1-11.dll) mingw32(libilmthread-2_1-11.dll) mingw32(libimath-2_1-11.dll) mingw32-ilmbase mingw64-ilmbase: mingw64(libhalf-11.dll) mingw64(libiex-2_1-11.dll) mingw64(libiexmath-2_1-11.dll) mingw64(libilmthread-2_1-11.dll) mingw64(libimath-2_1-11.dll) mingw64-ilmbase Source checksums ---------------- http://download.savannah.nongnu.org/releases/openexr/ilmbase-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1e841ad89c5761940b07a125e6909ad22fe9fe0f99eadef45e0cca4efc6819b4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1e841ad89c5761940b07a125e6909ad22fe9fe0f99eadef45e0cca4efc6819b4 AutoTools: Obsoleted m4s found ------------------------------ AC_PROG_LIBTOOL found in: ilmbase-2.1.0/configure.ac:29 AM_CONFIG_HEADER found in: ilmbase-2.1.0/configure.ac:13 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1049547 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG ====== The two mentioned issues are not required, it' up to you if to change anything. Package APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=auRo15Ha9Y&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[pkgdb] mingw-pthreads (un)retirement
by Fedora PackageDB 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

Package mingw-pthreads in Fedora 20 has been retired by epienbro To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/mingw-pthreads

1 0

[pkgdb] mingw-pthreads ownership changed
by Fedora PackageDB 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

Package mingw-pthreads in Fedora 20 was orphaned by epienbro To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/mingw-pthreads

1 0

[mingw-pthreads/f20] Package has been retired, obsoleted by mingw-winpthreads
by Erik van Pienbroek 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

commit b8a4fd0854a6105838ad1d5a01f29143415fb651 Author: Erik van Pienbroek <epienbro(a)fedoraproject.org> Date: Sun Jan 12 18:12:59 2014 +0100 Package has been retired, obsoleted by mingw-winpthreads .gitignore | 2 - dead.package | 1 + mingw-pthreads.spec | 321 -------------------- ...-pthreads-2.8.0-20110511-no-failing-tests.patch | 30 -- ...threads-2.8.0-20110511-use-wine-for-tests.patch | 26 -- mingw32-pthreads-flags.patch | 13 - sources | 1 - 7 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 393 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/dead.package b/dead.package new file mode 100644 index 0000000..68ea85e --- /dev/null +++ b/dead.package @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +Package has been retired, obsoleted by mingw-winpthreads

1 0

[pkgdb] mingw-pthreads (un)retirement
by Fedora PackageDB 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

Package mingw-pthreads in Fedora devel has been retired by epienbro To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/mingw-pthreads

1 0

[pkgdb] mingw-pthreads ownership changed
by Fedora PackageDB 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

Package mingw-pthreads in Fedora devel was orphaned by epienbro To make changes to this package see: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/mingw-pthreads

1 0

[mingw-pthreads] Package has been retired, obsoleted by mingw-winpthreads
by Erik van Pienbroek 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

commit eab8f70a6be38712411daad8106b493f29b1712e Author: Erik van Pienbroek <epienbro(a)fedoraproject.org> Date: Sun Jan 12 18:07:59 2014 +0100 Package has been retired, obsoleted by mingw-winpthreads .gitignore | 2 - dead.package | 1 + mingw-pthreads.spec | 321 -------------------- ...-pthreads-2.8.0-20110511-no-failing-tests.patch | 30 -- ...threads-2.8.0-20110511-use-wine-for-tests.patch | 26 -- mingw32-pthreads-flags.patch | 13 - sources | 1 - 7 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 393 deletions(-) --- diff --git a/dead.package b/dead.package new file mode 100644 index 0000000..68ea85e --- /dev/null +++ b/dead.package @@ -0,0 +1 @@ +Package has been retired, obsoleted by mingw-winpthreads

1 0

Review swaps
by Sandro Mani 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

Hi, I needed freeimage for win32 and decided to package it (turns out this was a bad idea, since I landed in bundled libraries hell). But hey, having survived the pain I might as well submit it for review ;) (along with dependencies): * mingw-freeimage - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049546 * mingw-ilmbase - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049547 * mingw-libmng - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049548 * mingw-OpenEXR - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049549 * mingw-LibRaw - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1049550 Happy to review in exchange. Thanks, Sandro

2 6

[Bug 1016887] Review Request: mingw-c-ares - A library for asynchronous DNS operations
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1016887 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |manisandro(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |manisandro(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bQlwMnrehH&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec
by Red Hat Bugzilla 12 Jan '14

12 Jan '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1051836 Sandro Mani <manisandro(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |manisandro(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |manisandro(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CbMGkjMQiS&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw January 2014