Spec URL: http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/mingw-spice-gtk.spec SRPM URL: http://elmarco.fedorapeople.org/mingw-spice-gtk-0.12-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Client libraries for SPICE desktop servers.
Full review done: Good: -------- - rpmlint checks return: mingw32-spice-glib.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency mingw32-glib2 mingw32-spice-glib.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr x86_64-w64-mingw32 mingw32-spice-gtk.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-spice-gtk-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw32-spice-gtk-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw32-spice-gtk3.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-spice-glib.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency mingw64-glib2 mingw64-spice-glib.noarch: W: non-standard-dir-in-usr i686-w64-mingw32 mingw64-spice-gtk.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-spice-gtk-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources mingw64-spice-gtk-static.noarch: W: no-documentation mingw64-spice-gtk3.noarch: W: no-documentation 10 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 8 warnings. ^^These are all expected for mingw packages, so no problem here ^^ - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license (LGPLv2+) OK, text in %doc, matches source - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - locales properly handled - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - %clean ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file Needs-work: ----------------- - you remove all .la files, but non of the other mingw packages I have seen do that, so it is probably better to not do that. Note, this seems something which is under discussion: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Packaging_issues But as said I believe for now it is best to just keep the .la files there.
(In reply to comment #1) > Needs-work: > ----------------- > - you remove all .la files, but non of the other mingw packages I have seen do > that, so it is probably better to not do that. Note, this seems something which > is under discussion: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW/Packaging_issues > But as said I believe for now it is best to just keep the .la files there. From what I know, all the mignw64 packages remove the libtool files, as proposed in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGWCrossCompiler
(In reply to comment #2) > From what I know, all the mignw64 packages remove the libtool files, as > proposed in > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/MinGWCrossCompiler Ah I hadn't found that page with even newer guidelines, good! APPROVED!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mingw-spice-gtk Short Description: Cross-compiled client libraries for SPICE Owners: elmarco epienbro rjones Branches: f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
We removed most of the .la files from mingw packages during the mingw.org -> mingw-w64 toolchain transition in F17. See this post for some background info: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/mingw/2012-January/004421.html Regarding the guidelines, I am not sure why it's taking so long to get the official pages updated. The draft was approved 3 weeks ago and I've pinged the FPC again this Monday: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/163
mingw-spice-gtk-0.12-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-spice-gtk-0.12-1.fc17
mingw-spice-gtk-0.12-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
mingw-spice-gtk-0.12-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mingw-spice-gtk-0.12-2.fc17
mingw-spice-gtk-0.12-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.