January 2014 - mingw - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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

10 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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

10 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1049547] Review Request: mingw-ilmbase - MinGW Windows ilmbase library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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

10 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1049547] Review Request: mingw-ilmbase - MinGW Windows ilmbase library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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

10 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1049550] Review Request: mingw-LibRaw - MinGW Windows LibRaw library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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

10 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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=606fdfcaece19d3e05434bde5... Patch1: flac-metaflac_strcat.patch # https://git.xiph.org/?p=flac.git;a=commitdiff;h=4eab6313cd2198b5647d925bd... 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

10 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 964437] Review Request: mingw-portmidi - Real-time Midi I/O Library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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

10 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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

10 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1049548] Review Request: mingw-libmng - MinGW Windows libmng library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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

10 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1051836] Review Request: mingw-flac - Encoder/decoder for the Free Lossless Audio Codec

by Red Hat Bugzilla

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

10 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

mingw January 2014