Spec URL: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono.spec SRPM URL: http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono-0.0.4-4.fc17.src.rpm Description: Mono library required for Wine. Fedora Account System Username: awjb
I see you're not using mingw32-wine-mono or mingw64-wine-mono binary package names but put the .msi file in a binary rpm named mingw-wine-mono. Is this intentional? Does it contain both the win32 and win64 pieces?
Yes this is intentional. I'd prefer a setup like wine-gecko but this is what wine currently supports. Here is the quote from: http://wiki.winehq.org/Mono "Unlike gecko, there is only one package containing the code for both x86 and x86_64, as most of the code does not depend on the architecture."
http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono.spec http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/mingw-wine-mono-0.0.4-5.fc17.src.rpm https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4201110 * Wed Jun 27 2012 Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert[AT]lowlatency.de> - 0.0.4-5 - add conditional so package builds on x86-64 builders as well
Regarding the naming issue that Erik pointed out: The MinGW Packaging Guidelines are for library packages that can be used for building Windows apps. But this package is different; it only installs a .msi and no dlls / header files and is apparently only meant for use within Wine. As such, perhaps it would be clearer if it's called 'wine-mono'? This package is really just another component for the wine stack, even though it's built using the mingw cross compiler. I don't think the mingw naming guidelines are applicable here.
I am fine with it either way. However, if we decide on wine-mono we should rename the gecko stuff accordingly...
I was just about to propose the exact same thing about the package naming :) I'm +1 to use the package name wine-mono given the situation
http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wine-mono.spec http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.src.rpm * Fri Jun 29 2012 Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert[AT]lowlatency.de> - 0.0.4-6 - rename to wine-mono
Taking for review.
Even though you are not packaging a traditional MinGW package, you are using the MinGW toolkit to build it so I feel it should try to follow the MinGW packaging guidelines. $ md5sum Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz 61c5ee49b8847c4dccfdab1fbc0706ae Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz $ md5sum rpmbuild/SOURCES/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz 61c5ee49b8847c4dccfdab1fbc0706ae rpmbuild/SOURCES/wine-mono-0.0.4.tar.gz $ rpmlint rpmbuild/SPECS/wine-mono.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint Downloads/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint /home/michael/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/wine-mono-0.0.4-6.fc17.noarch.rpm wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-COPYING.LIB wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-mcs-LICENSE.GPL wine-mono.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/wine-mono-0.0.4/mono-mcs-LICENSE.LGPL 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 0 warnings. + OK ! Needs to be looked into / Not applicable [+] Compliant with generic Fedora Packaging Guidelines [/] Source package name is prefixed with 'mingw-' [!] Spec file starts with %{?mingw_package_header} [!] BuildRequires: mingw32-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file [!] BuildRequires: mingw64-filesystem >= 95 is in the .spec file [/] Spec file contains %package sections for both mingw32 and mingw64 packages [+] Binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are noarch [/] Spec file contains %{?mingw_debug_package} after the %description section [/] Uses one of the macros %mingw_configure, %mingw_cmake, or %mingw_cmake_kde4 to configure the package [/] Uses the macro %mingw_make to build the package [/] Uses the macro %mingw_make to install the package [/] If package contains translations, the %mingw_find_lang macro must be used [/] No binary package named mingw-$pkgname is generated [/] Libtool .la files are not bundled [/] .def files are not bundled [/] Man pages which duplicate native package are not bundled [/] Info files which duplicate native package are not bundled [/] Provides of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal [/] Requires of the binary mingw32 and mingw64 packages are equal The incorrect-fsf-address rpmlint warning should be reported upstream. Please check the items I marked that need looking into before I pass the review: -%?mingw_package_header should be %{?mingw_package_header} -The BRs for the filesystem packages are missing.
incorrect-fsf-address reported upstream: http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31121 http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wine-mono.spec http://fedora.lowlatency.de/review/wine-mono-0.0.4-7.fc17.src.rpm * Wed Jul 04 2012 Andreas Bierfert <andreas.bierfert[AT]lowlatency.de> - 0.0.4-7 - add mingw-filesystem BR - fix header macro
Looks good. ================================================ The package wine-mono is APPROVED by mooninite ================================================
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: wine-mono Short Description: Mono library required for Wine Owners: awjb Branches: f17
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thanks for the review!