Spec URL: http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SPECS/mingw32-liboil.spec SRPM URL: http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/mingw32-liboil-0.3.15-1.src.rpm Description: MinGW Windows liboil library Approved packaging guidelines for MinGW are here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW
Generally looks OK. Is there a reason why this is commented out? #%{_mingw32_libdir}/liboil-0.3*.dll.a
i updated the files. anyways it'd be useful write a quick glossary what the *.def *.a *.dll *.dll.a *.la etc and what we should include in which packages.
The packaging guidelines contain what we agreed to ship: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/MinGW#Libraries_.28DLLs.29 What they do and whether they are necessary is covered here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Packaging_issues (Please expand the second link if you know definitive answers to any of those questions).
Please develop against Rawhide. All new packages should go into Rawhide first, even if they are intended to be used/backported in EPEL. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1248037
Auto-buildrequires is suggesting the following BuildRequires. Note the ones marked with '*' which I think should be added ... BuildRequires: mingw32-binutils = 2.19.1.4.fc11.x86_64 BuildRequires: mingw32-cpp = 4.4.0.0.6.fc11.x86_64 * BuildRequires: mingw32-dlfcn = 0.0.5.r11.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem = 49.3.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: mingw32-gcc = 4.4.0.0.6.fc11.x86_64 * BuildRequires: mingw32-gettext = 0.17.10.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: mingw32-glib2 = 2.19.10.1.fc11.noarch * BuildRequires: mingw32-iconv = 1.12.9.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: mingw32-runtime = 3.15.2.3.fc11.noarch BuildRequires: mingw32-w32api = 3.13.3.fc11.noarch * BuildRequires: pkgconfig = 1:0.23.8.fc11.x86_64
rpmlint is quiet, and package successfully builds in Koji.
+ rpmlint output + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English - spec file is legible (see below) + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 11dd39b1ca13ce2e0618d4df8303f137 822195 + package successfully builds on at least one architecture 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 n/a does not use Prefix: /usr n/a package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %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 n/a 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 n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock + the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures - review should test the package functions as described n/a scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel n/a shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin ------------- Couple of things: (1) Please add your real name and email address in the first %changelog description. (2) The package must have: Requires: pkgconfig When you create a new package, bump the release number and add a new changelog entry. You can probably ignore comment 5, since the BuildRequires look OK.
for #5 where does this Auto-buildrequires comes from? anyway it's strange that it can be build in mock without these BRs. also the native packages has no such BRs (eg gettext). on the other hand all these req are comes from gtk2 BR. do you really think i should add them? i add BuildRequires: pkgconfig Requires: pkgconfig the changelog contains the name of the real packages i'm just submit it for rr.
(In reply to comment #8) > for #5 where does this Auto-buildrequires comes from? From Fedora of course: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/auto-buildrequires > anyway it's strange that it can be build in mock without these BRs. also the Not strange. Autoconf can decide to compile the package differently depending on the presence or absence of dependencies. > native packages has no such BRs (eg gettext). on the other hand all these req > are comes from gtk2 BR. do you really think i should add them? HOWEVER in this case I suspect that the dependencies come from glib2, so you can ignore them, as I said above. > i add > BuildRequires: pkgconfig > Requires: pkgconfig > the changelog contains the name of the real packages i'm just submit it for rr. Can you post the new URLs please.
so it's you package:-) can you build it for epel too? thanks. the url are same: http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SPECS/mingw32-liboil.spec http://www.lfarkas.org/linux/packages/centos/5/SRPMS/mingw32-liboil-0.3.15-1.src.rpm
The URL is wrong, but anyway ... --------------------------- This package is APPROVED by rjones ---------------------------
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-liboil Short Description: MinGW Windows liboil library Owners: lfarkas rjones Branches: F-10 EL-5 InitialCC:
cvs done.
(In reply to comment #8) > for #5 where does this Auto-buildrequires comes from? auto-buildrequires is now (or very shortly will be) in EPEL 5.
This is built now, so closing.