[Bug 828781] Review Request: ghc-logict - A continuation-based, backtracking, logic programming monad

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828781

Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com&gt; changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com&gt; ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.

rpmlint  -i ghc-logict-0.5.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
ghc-logict-0.5.0.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-logict-devel-0.5.0.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
 ../ghc-logict.spec 
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
        Naming-Yes
        Version-release - Matches
        License - OK
        No prebuilt external bits - OK
        Spec legibity - OK
        Package template - OK
        Arch support - OK
        Libexecdir - OK
        rpmlint - yes
        changelogs - OK
        Source url tag  - OK, validated.
        Build Requires list - OK   
        API documentation - OK, in devel package.

[-]MUST : Summary and description - 
Not ok.

[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
BSD license
[+]MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum logict-0.5.0.1.tar.gz 
07f0a62df6b394c6737db21bba68644e  logict-0.5.0.1.tar.gz
md5sum ghc-logict-0.5.0.1-1.fc16.src/logict-0.5.0.1.tar.gz 
07f0a62df6b394c6737db21bba68644e 
ghc-logict-0.5.0.1-1.fc16.src/logict-0.5.0.1.tar.gz

[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR 
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-logict
error: Failed dependencies:
    ghc(logict-0.5.0.1) = a1c20b25a86ec71d8ff3f4cc49010909 is needed by
(installed) ghc-logict-devel-0.5.0.1-1.fc16.x86_64
    ghc-logict = 0.5.0.1-1.fc16 is needed by (installed)
ghc-logict-devel-0.5.0.1-1.fc16.x86_64
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Should items
[+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed. Loaded Control.Monad.Logic.Class into ghci.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.

cabal2spec-diff is OK.

Please provide relevant summary and description in the spec.

APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.