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=502387 Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch&gt; 2009-05-26 06:13:51 EDT --- Fedora review http://www.ftd4linux.nl/contrib/mingw32-libgnurx-2.5.1-1.fc11.src.rpm 2009-05-26 rpmlint output: $ rpmlint * mingw32-hunspell.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libparsers.a mingw32-hunspell-static.noarch: E: arch-independent-package-contains-binary-or-object /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libhunspell-1.2.a mingw32-hunspell-static.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. As per Packaging/MinGW, these errors can be ignored. + OK ! needs attention + 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 version seems to be slightly ahead of native (1.1 vs. 1.0) please try to stick to the native version + License meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora LGPLv2+ or GPLv2+ or MPLv1.1 + License matches the actual package license + The package contains the license file (COPYING,COPYING.LGPL,COPYING.MPL) + Spec file is written in American English + Spec file is legible - IMO, you don't need to include the whole history of the native package in %changelog, just a reference that it was derived from the native package would be sufficient + Upstream sources match sources in the srpm 1177af54a09e320d2c24015f29c3a93e hunspell-1.2.8.tar.gz 1177af54a09e320d2c24015f29c3a93e x/hunspell-1.2.8.tar.gz n/a Package builds in mock n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* 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 + Static libraries should be in -static + Packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel 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 Have you tried to upstream your patches? Especially hunspell-build-dll.patch seems like very upstream-worthy. Also, what is the failure mode of AC_FUNC_MALLOC? I guess a bug report with autoconf would be in order. -- 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.

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=502387 Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Thomas Sailer <t.sailer(a)alumni.ethz.ch&gt; 2009-05-26 06:56:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) I agree we don't want rpl_malloc. The question is why does it fail to find the malloc in libmsvcrt.a (or newer friends). libmsvcrt.a provides _malloc: i686-pc-mingw32-nm /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libmsvcrt.a dxnmbs00676.o: 00000000 b .bss 00000000 d .data 00000000 i .idata$4 00000000 i .idata$5 00000000 i .idata$6 00000000 i .idata$7 00000000 t .text U __head_libmsvcrt_a 00000000 I __imp__malloc 00000000 T _malloc But that shouldn't hold up packaging. APPROVED by sailer. -- 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.

Op dinsdag 26-05-2009 om 13:14 uur [tijdzone +0200], schreef Fridrich Strba: Thanks for the clarification! In the future, could you please leave comments on bugzilla tickets in bugzilla itself instead of the mailing list? That way it'll be easier to keep all information together and prevent it from getting scattered. Regards, Erik van Pienbroek

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=502387 Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Erik van Pienbroek <erik-fedora(a)vanpienbroek.nl&gt; 2009-05-26 07:26:16 EDT --- Thomas, thanks for the review! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-hunspell Short Description: MinGW Windows spell checker and morphological analyzer library Owners: epienbro rjones Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC: -- 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.

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=502387 Fridrich Strba <fridrich.strba(a)bluewin.ch&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fridrich.strba(a)bluewin.ch --- Comment #7 from Fridrich Strba <fridrich.strba(a)bluewin.ch&gt; 2009-05-26 10:47:01 EDT --- OK, I don't see how you want to change that. You need to run a programme to be sure that malloc(0) returns NULL or non-null. You have some other situations where you cannot determine something without actually running a programme, like allignments of types. The standard way of proceding is either to patch the system for known platform with values that we know to be true (I did this here http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/evolution-data-server/trunk/configure.in?r1=9... ) or to pre-populate the compile cache with values for tests that cannot be run. In this case, it is just to pre-fill the cache with: ac_cv_func_malloc_0_nonnull=yes -- 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.

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=502387 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; 2009-06-02 11:16:20 EDT --- mingw32-hunspell-1.2.8-6.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw32-hunspell-1.2.8-6.fc11 -- 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.

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=502387 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |1.2.8-6.fc11 Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- 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.