[Bug 1460342] Review Request: mingw-popt - MinGW Windows popt library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460342

Michael Jeanson  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |WONTFIX
  Flags|needinfo?(mjean...@gmail.co |
   |m)  |
Last Closed||2021-06-07 14:13:06



--- Comment #6 from Michael Jeanson  ---
I had completely forgotten about this, I'm not interested anymore.

Thanks.


-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1460342] Review Request: mingw-popt - MinGW Windows popt library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460342

Mattia Verga  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|POST|NEW
   Assignee|zebo...@gmail.com   |nob...@fedoraproject.org
  Flags|fedora-review+  |needinfo?(mjean...@gmail.co
   ||m)



--- Comment #5 from Mattia Verga  ---
Package was never imported, resetting the ticket status.

Micheal, are you still interested in packaging this?


-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Bug 1460342] Review Request: mingw-popt - MinGW Windows popt library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460342

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|POST
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
I don't see the short description of the patches. Anyhow the rest is good,
pacakge accepted.

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1460342] Review Request: mingw-popt - MinGW Windows popt library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460342



--- Comment #3 from Michael Jeanson  ---
Hi,

Here are the updated files to address your comments.

http://copr-dist-git.fedorainfracloud.org/cgit/mjeanson/mingw/mingw-popt.git/tree/mingw-popt.spec
https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mjeanson/mingw/fedora-26-x86_64/00601468-mingw-popt/mingw-popt-1.16-2.fc26.src.rpm

I've added short descriptions to the patches, they are from
https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mingw-w64-popt/

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1460342] Review Request: mingw-popt - MinGW Windows popt library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460342

Robert-André Mauchin  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||zebo...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin  ---
Hello,

 - Group: is not used in Fedora:

 - No need for %clean, no need for rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in %install

 - Patches: a small line explaining why they are needed/what they do would be
great

 - You've got a mix of tabs and spaces throughout your SPEC file:

mingw-popt.src:22: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 22, tab: line
3)

Choose one or another.



Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
 other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
 Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 136 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/mingw-popt/review-mingw-
 popt/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
 root, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32,
 /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib, /usr/i686-w64-mingw32,
 /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
 root/mingw, /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
 names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
 Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
 (~1MB) or number of files.
 Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
 one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
 license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
 license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
 that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
 beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
 work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
 provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
 %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

= SHOULD items =

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
 file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream 

[Bug 1460342] Review Request: mingw-popt - MinGW Windows popt library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460342



--- Comment #1 from Michael Jeanson  ---
Builds are available on COPR :
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mjeanson/mingw/packages/

-- 
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 -- package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org