Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=851180
--- Comment #6 from greg.helli...@gmail.com --- (In reply to comment #4) > Both versions are not fully API compatible. See for example > http://littlecms2.blogspot.ch/search?updated-max=2010-02-15T17:31:00Z&max- > results=12&start=12&by-date=false > > This is presumably why we have both versions as native libraries as well. > > I was packaging poppler for mingw, and poppler still wants lcms v1. > Understandable. I feel the same crunch for some software I've been trying to build. > > -rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build > > produces. The output should be posted in the review. > > mingw32-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources > > mingw64-lcms-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources > > In my opinion these should be waved. mingw debuginfo packages never include > the source code (see for example > mingw32-libtiff-debuginfo-3.9.5-7.fc17.noarch.rpm); also, the way this > package generates the debuginfo subpackage is exactly as per the fesco > approved mingw packaging guidelines > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW?rd=Packaging/ > MinGW#Manpages_and_info_files > > > mingw32-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation > > mingw64-lcms-static.noarch: W: no-documentation > > Again, these should IMO be waved, as the mingw packaging guidelines requires > documentation which is just a duplicate of the documentation of the native > package not to be packaged. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:MinGW?rd=Packaging/ > MinGW#Manpages_and_info_files > Mea culpa. I should have marked that line as fine. Those warnings are acceptable. > > 4) Lines beginning with 'Group:' are superfluous and can be removed > I can do this if you really absolutely require this, but I find it ugly when > rpm -qi reports "Group: Unspecified"; also, other mingw packages also > provide a group name It's not a requirement, as Kalev mentioned > > 6) Is there a reason you are relying on mingw*-filesystem >= 68 instead of a > > newer version? > removed; I think this is a cut&paste artifact This needs to be minimally versioned to >= 95. You can set it higher if there are necessary dependencies introduced in later versions, e.g. macros you use in your spec file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
