[Bug 523224] Review Request: mingw32-xerces-c - MingGW Windows validating XML parser

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523224 Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |kalev(a)smartlink.ee AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |kalev(a)smartlink.ee Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Kalev Lember <kalev(a)smartlink.ee&gt; 2009-11-24 13:08:29 EDT --- Fedora review mingw32-xerces-c-3.0.1-1.fc12.src.rpm 2009-11-24 + OK ! needs attention rpmlint says: mingw32-xerces-c.src: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US Namespaces mingw32-xerces-c.noarch: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US Namespaces mingw32-xerces-c-debuginfo.noarch: W: spelling-error-in-summary en_US mingw mingw32-xerces-c-debuginfo.noarch: W: spelling-error-in-description en_US mingw mingw32-xerces-c-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. All these rpmlint warnings are harmless and can be ignored. The debuginfo-without-sources doesn't mean that anything is wrong with this package, but rather that mingw32 debug package generator doesn't put sources in the package. + rpmlint output + Package is named according to Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + Specfile name matches the package base name + Package follows the Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + The stated license (ASL 2.0) is a Fedora approved license + The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding native Fedora package + The package contains the license file (LICENSE) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. sha1sum: 71e4efee5397dd45d6bafad34bf3bc766bc2a085 xerces-c-3.0.1.tar.gz 71e4efee5397dd45d6bafad34bf3bc766bc2a085 Download/xerces-c-3.0.1.tar.gz + Package builds in mock/koji n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun + Does not use Prefix: /usr + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + %files has %defattr + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Consistent use of macros + Package must contain code or permissible content n/a Large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage + Files marked %doc should not affect package n/a Header files should be in -devel Fedora MinGW guidelines allow headers in main package n/a Static libraries should be in -static + Packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a Library files that end in .so must go in a -devel package n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base n/a Packages should not contain libtool .la files Fedora MinGW guidelines allow .la files n/a Packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + Packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + Filenames must be valid UTF-8 Looks good. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug.