https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=970420
František Dvořák <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #1 from František Dvořák <[email protected]> --- Issues found: * build dependencies: - missing mingw64 tools - it doesn't build because of that - gzip not needed (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRequires_2) - C++ not needed - mingwXX-binutils can be removed (will be picked by mingwXX-gcc) * manpages are not needed in MinGW packages * mingw patch: - there is added -fno-stack-protector to CFLAGS, is it needed? (and why?) - is it needed to comment out *_INSTALL* things and tools? - it could be more generic (using variable for adding .exe to program names, ...) - (it can be compared with other patches "in the wild": http://lrn.no-ip.info/other/mingw/mingw32/gsm/1.0.13-2/) - more generic version could be sent to upstream * RHEL5 stuff can be removed (Group, BuildRoot, %clean, rm -rf, %defattr, ...) * %prep: - better to use 'cp -a' to preserve timestamps - gsm doesn't support the out of source build; I haven't found problem in the way used in this .spec file, but I don't know the standard recommended way of doing it in Fedora MinGW packages... * cosmetic: mixed tab/space rpmlint warning * library name could be rather libgsm-1.dll? But I'm not sure, Windows libraries naming is not so strict IMHO... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
