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=467418

Bug 467418 depends on bug 454410, which changed state.

Bug 454410 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-gcc - MinGW Windows cross-compiler (GCC) for C and C++ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=454410

What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED

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=467418

Bug 467418 depends on bug 467403, which changed state.

Bug 467403 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libgpg-error - MinGW Windows GnuPGP error library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467403

What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE

Bug 467418 depends on bug 467405, which changed state.

Bug 467405 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libxml2 - MinGW Windows libxml2 XML processing library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467405

What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE

Bug 467418 depends on bug 467410, which changed state.

Bug 467410 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-libgcrypt - MinGW Windows gcrypt encryption library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467410

What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED

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=467418

--- Comment #3 from Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com 2009-03-09 13:35:53 EDT --- Spec URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw32-libvirt.spec SRPM URL: http://www.annexia.org/tmp/mingw32-libvirt-0.6.1-1.fc11.src.rpm

* Mon Mar 9 2009 Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com - 0.6.1-1 - Rebase to Fedora native version 0.6.1.

* Fri Feb 20 2009 Richard W.M. Jones rjones@redhat.com - 0.5.1-4 - Rebuild for mingw32-gcc 4.4

* Fri Jan 30 2009 Richard Jones rjones@redhat.com - 0.5.1-3 - Include license file.

* Fri Jan 30 2009 Richard Jones rjones@redhat.com - 0.5.1-2 - Requires pkgconfig.

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=467418

--- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel.sylvan@gmail.com 2009-03-13 17:15:56 EDT --- configure is testing for GLIB2:

checking for GLIB2... no

but this is probably a (minor) configure.in bug. It looks like GLIB2 is only pulled in if building with DeviceKit support.

Review:

(-) rpmlint: source clean. binary: contains manpage, this should probably be removed mingw32-libvirt.noarch: W: manpage-not-gzipped /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/share/man/man1/virsh.1

(+) package name (+) spec file name (+) package meets guidelines for inclusion (+) license meets guideline (+) license field accurate (-) license not deleted COPYING.LIB is included, but COPYING is not (+) spec language (+) spec is legible (+) source meets upstream (+) package compiles (tested on rawhide i586) (N/A) excludearch (+) build deps complete (+) %find_lang for locales (N/A) ldconfig for shared libraries (+) directory ownership (+) file listing not duplicated (+) permissions (+) %clean (+) macros consistent (+) package contains code (N/A) large docs in -doc (N/A) -doc not needed at runtime (N/A) headers in -devel (package is for development) (N/A) static libs in -static (+) .pc -> req pkgconfig (note: dir ownership provided by mingw32-filesystem) (N/A) .so in -devel (N/A) -devel req versioned base

(-) package contains .la archive: %{_mingw32_libdir}/libvirt.la

(N/A) desktop file packaging (+) not owning pre-owned files/dirs (+) install clears buildroot (+) filenames UTF-8

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=467418

Mamoru Tasaka mtasaka@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |michel.sylvan@gmail.com

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=467418

--- Comment #8 from Ryan O'Hara rohara@redhat.com 2010-07-16 15:41:46 EDT --- Just a heads up that mingw32-portablexdr is build and the packages are waiting for review. See the BZ below.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467324

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=467418

Adam Stokes astokes@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |astokes@redhat.com Flag| |needinfo?

--- Comment #10 from Adam Stokes astokes@redhat.com 2010-09-02 10:51:53 EDT --- Hi Daniel,

Thanks for posting an updated spec -- I had trouble building this package with a simple `rpmbuild --rebuild src.rpm`

Review below:

MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] - pass MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . - pass MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . - pass MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . - pass MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . - pass MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] - pass MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4] - fail MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] - pass MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] - pass MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. - pass MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] - fail i686-pc-mingw32-gcc: unrecognized option '-pthread' testutils.o: In function `virtTestClearLineRegex': /home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2/tests/testutils.c:556: undefined reference to `_regcomp' /home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2/tests/testutils.c:565: undefined reference to `_regexec' /home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2/tests/testutils.c:588: undefined reference to `_regfree' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[3]: *** [virshtest.exe] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2/tests' make[2]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2/tests' make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/akimbo/rpmbuild/BUILD/libvirt-0.8.2' make: *** [all] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.aMFViV (%build)

MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] - todo MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. - todo MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] - pass (no locales) MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] - n/a MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] - n/a MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [12] - n/a MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [13] - todo MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] - pass MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [15] - todo MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] - pass MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] - pass MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] - n/a MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] - n/a MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] - n/a MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] - n/a MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [19] - n/a MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [21] - n/a MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] - todo MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [22] - n/a MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no - todo

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=467418

Andrew Beekhof abeekhof@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |abeekhof@redhat.com

--- Comment #12 from Andrew Beekhof abeekhof@redhat.com 2010-09-02 11:35:01 EDT --- Is there a runtime issue if they're both installed?

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=467418

Adam Stokes astokes@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?

--- Comment #14 from Adam Stokes astokes@redhat.com 2010-09-02 12:01:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #10)

MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4] - fail

SHOULD: please include this in spec at some point

MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7]

- pass

MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

- pass

MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]

- pass

MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [13]

- pass

MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [15]

- pass

MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20]

- fail

MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no

- pass MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] - pass

SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. - pass

SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense. - pass

Everything looks great except for the packaged libvirt.la, once this is removed I'll approve the package.

Thanks

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=467418

--- Comment #15 from Andrew Beekhof abeekhof@redhat.com 2010-09-02 12:13:49 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14)

Everything looks great except for the packaged libvirt.la, once this is removed I'll approve the package.

The mingw packaging standards might over-rule this. I notice:

# find /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw -name "*.la" /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgettextlib.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libvirt.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libxml2.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libcharset.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libexpat.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libintl.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgnutls-openssl.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libportablexdr.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libasprintf.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libxslt.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgpg-error.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgettextpo.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libexslt.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libz.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpcrecpp.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libiconv.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpcreposix.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgettextsrc.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libpcre.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgnutls.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgnutls-extra.la /usr/i686-pc-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/libgcrypt.la

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=467418

Adam Stokes astokes@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #17 from Adam Stokes astokes@redhat.com 2010-09-02 12:25:36 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-libvirt Short Description: MinGW Windows libvirt Owners: astokes rohara aphilipoff danpb Branches: f13 f14 InitialCC: rohara astokes aphilipoff pmyers danpb

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=467418

--- Comment #19 from Andrew Beekhof abeekhof@redhat.com 2010-09-02 13:28:41 EDT --- Isn't it Daniel/Richard's package? Adam is just acting as reviewer and offering to help maintain it.

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=467418

Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |

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=467418

Bug 467418 depends on bug 467324, which changed state.

Bug 467324 Summary: Review Request: mingw32-portablexdr - MinGW Windows PortableXDR XDR / RPC library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467324

What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED

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=467418

Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2010-09-08 13:00:38

--- Comment #23 from Daniel Berrange berrange@redhat.com 2010-09-08 13:00:38 EDT --- Built into rawhide as mingw32-libvirt-0.8.3-1.fc15