https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823641

Hans de Goede <[email protected]> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|[email protected]    |[email protected]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede <[email protected]> ---
Full review done:

Good:
--------
- rpmlint checks return:
mingw32-usbredir-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw32-usbredir-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-usbredir-debuginfo.noarch: E: debuginfo-without-sources
mingw64-usbredir-static.noarch: W: no-documentation
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 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

Should fix:
---------------
- There is a "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" in your %install, this is not needed with
modern rpm versions, and
  should not be there unless you also manually specify a buildroot and have a
manual %clean section
- BuildRequires: mingw*-libusb1 likely needs to become BuildRequires:
mingw*-libusbx see the
  mingw-libusb1 review.

Please fix both of these before building for the first time.

No blockers -> Approved!

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
[email protected]
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

Reply via email to