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=673784

Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mike@cchtml.com Flag| |needinfo?(erik-fedora@vanpi | |enbroek.nl)

--- Comment #23 from Michael Cronenworth mike@cchtml.com 2011-05-05 20:32:48 EDT --- My first review. Go easy on me!

+ OK ! needs attention

rpmlint output: $ rpmlint mingw-filesystem mingw-filesystem-scripts mingw32-filesystem mingw64-filesystem mingw-filesystem.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided cross-filesystem mingw-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided cross-filesystem-scripts mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/libexec/mingw-scripts mingw-filesystem-scripts.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/mingw-filesystem-scripts-69/COPYING mingw32-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-filesystem.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/mingw32-configure /usr/libexec/mingw-scripts mingw32-filesystem.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mingw32-configure mingw64-filesystem.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-filesystem.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/bin/mingw64-configure /usr/libexec/mingw-scripts mingw64-filesystem.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mingw64-configure 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 10 warnings.

I don't think the FSF address is an issue, but you may want to correct it. The rest of the messages look harmless.

+ rpmlint output + The package is named according to the latest Fedora MinGW packaging guidelines + The spec file name matches the package base name + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The license field in the spec file matches the actual license + The stated license is the same as the one for the corresponding native Fedora package + The package contains the license file (COPYING) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible ? Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. They are all plain-text scripts, but where is upstream? + The package builds in koji http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3053279 n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires look sane n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly n/a ldconfig in %post and %postun + Package does not bundle copies of system libraries n/a Package isn't relocatable + Package owns all directories it creates + No duplicate files in %files + Permissions are properly set + Consistent use of macros + The 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 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 + Directory ownership sane + Filenames are valid UTF-8

If you want to, you can also remove the %clean section and the BuildRoot lines which are also no longer required in current Fedora releases, before importing the package to git. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingGuidelines#.25clean

I'll approve it once I know where the upstream is. I feel a comment should be put where a VC system containing the scripts is. If there is no VC system then I guess it passes. I don't see a guideline that prohibits script-only packages.