Bug 619799

I'm taking over this package from Ryan, he's moved onto other projects

Updated SRPM:

http://repos.fedorapeople.org/repos/beekhof/matahari/fedora-13/SRPMS/mingw32-pcre-8.10-2.fc13.src.rpm

Looks like no-one set the review flag.

As far as I can see, this package passes the review criteria for inclusion.
Go ahead and request the CVS flag. 

rpmlint  ../SPECS/mingw32-pcre.spec mock/*pcre* 
mingw32-pcre.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
mingw32-pcre-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.

Using https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=499987 as a precedent, the Error is considered harmless

MUST
+   rpmlint errors / warnings above are harmless and can be ignored.
+   Package is named according to the Fedora MinGW naming guidelines
+   Package follows the Fedora MinGW packaging guideliens
+   The stated license (BSD) 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 (COPYING)
+   Spec file is written in American English
+   Spec file is legible
+   Upstream sources match sources in the srpm. md5sum:
      9524f0ff50b9093c02c81f911e41b066  pcre-8.10.tar.gz
      9524f0ff50b9093c02c81f911e41b066  SOURCES/pcre-8.10.tar.gz
+   Package builds in koji
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+   BuildRequires look sane, except that BR pkgconfig is probably not needed.
n/a The spec file MUST handle locales properly
+   Packages does not bundle copies of system libraries
+   Does not use Prefix: /usr
+   Package owns all directories it creates
+   No duplicate files in %files
+   Permissions are properly set and %files has %defattr
+   %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+   Consistent use of macros
+   Package contains 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 are 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


SHOULD:
n/a If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it
-   The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available
+   The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock
+   The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures
+   The reviewer should test that the package functions as described
n/a If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane
n/a Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
+ The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files 
- your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts
  Fedora MinGW guidelines indicate not to duplicate documentation found in Fedora native packages

Switching to my alternate identity which is allowed to set the review flag.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: mingw32-pcre
Short Description: MinGW Windows pcre library
Owners: astokes
Branches: f13 f14 devel
InitialCC: beekhof pmyers

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Imported, closing.