https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835686
--- Comment #9 from Michael Cronenworth <mike(a)cchtml.com> ---
Even though you are not packaging a traditional MinGW package, you are using
the MinGW toolkit to build it so I feel it should try to follow the MinGW
packaging guidelines.
$ md5sum Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz
61c5ee49b8847c4dccfdab1fbc0706ae Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz
$ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz
61c5ee49b8847c4dccfdab1fbc0706ae rpmbuild/SOURCES/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz
$ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/wine-mono.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint /home/michael/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.noarch.rpm
wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-COPYING.LIB
wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-mcs-LICENSE.GPL
wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-mcs-LICENSE.LGPL
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings.
+ OK
! Needs to be looked into
/ Not applicable
[+] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines
[/] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-'
[!] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header}
[!] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[!] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file
[/] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages
[+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch
[/] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section
[/] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4
to configure the package
[/] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package
[/] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package
[/] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used
[/] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated
[/] Libtool .la files are not bundled
[/] .def files are not bundled
[/] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled
[/] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled
[/] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
[/] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal
The incorrect-fsf-address rpmlint warning should be reported upstream.
Please check the items I marked that need looking into before I pass the
review:
-%?mingw_package_header should be %{?mingw_package_header}
-The BRs for the filesystem packages are missing.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.