Spec URL: http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libogg/mingw32-libogg.spec SRPM URL: http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libogg/mingw32-libogg-1.1.4-1.fc14.noarch.rpm Description: Libogg is a library for manipulating Ogg bitstream file formats. Libogg supports both making Ogg bitstreams and getting packets from Ogg bitstreams.
That file is a binary RPM, not the SRPM. Nevertheless I reconstructed the SRPM from the spec file. rpmlint output: mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ogg -> Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bitstream -> bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ogg -> Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstream -> bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstreams -> bit streams, bit-streams, bloodstreams Bogus as usual. mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %clean mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-buildroot-tag mingw32-libogg.src: W: no-%clean-section I think these are all no longer required. mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ogg -> Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bitstream -> bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ogg -> Egg, Org, Gog mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstream -> bit stream, bit-stream, midstream mingw32-libogg.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitstreams -> bit streams, bit-streams, bloodstreams Bogus as above. 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 14 warnings.
+ 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 BSD, and the native package is already in Fedora + license matches the actual package license + %doc includes license file + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm + package successfully builds on at least one architecture tried it on x86-64, cross-compiled to i386 n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies + %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 %{_mingw32_docdir}/libogg-%{version} is not needed, or if you want to include it, it must be marked %doc + %defattr line n/a %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 + header files should be in -devel this rule is not applicable for mingw32-* packages + static libraries should be in -static this rule is not applicable for mingw32-* packages n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base + packages should not contain libtool .la files this rule is not applicable for mingw32-* packages n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file + packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + filenames must be valid UTF-8 + use %global instead of %define 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 + scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin Please fix the docdir thing mentioned above.
Oops, picked wrong package when copying the link. Actually both src and binary package are there. Uploaded new revision 2 packages and updates spec file to the same location: http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libogg/ Documentation is removed there as it is redundant with the native package.
(In reply to comment #3) > Oops, picked wrong package when copying the link. Actually both src and binary > package are there. Uploaded new revision 2 packages and updates spec file to > the same location: > > http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/review/mingw32-libogg/ > > Documentation is removed there as it is redundant with the native package. Agreed. The updated package fixes the only issue I found in the main review. This package is APPROVED by rjones.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: mingw32-libogg Short Description: The Ogg bitstream file format library Owners: kraxel Branches: InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
rawhide builds are done.
*** Bug 529548 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***