[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 688499] Review Request: cabal-dev - Haskell package sandboxing tool

Fri Jul 29 18:17:37 UTC 2011

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=688499

--- Comment #8 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> 2011-07-29 14:17:36 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.

cabal-dev.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing,
sand-boxing, sandbagging
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

cabal-dev.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed -> sandboxes,
sand boxed, sand-boxed
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

cabal-dev.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ghc -> chg
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

cabal-dev.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing,
sand-boxing, sandbagging
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

cabal-dev.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed ->
sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

cabal-dev.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ghc -> chg
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

cabal-dev.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cabal-dev
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

cabal-dev.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fake-ghc-cabal-dev
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 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
        Summary and description - OK
        API documentation - OK

[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
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 cabal-dev-0.8-2.fc15.src/cabal-dev-0.8.tar.gz 
d6f39a18cb7427089f9d3e704c440409  cabal-dev-0.8-2.fc15.src/cabal-dev-0.8.tar.gz

 md5sum ~/Downloads/cabal-dev-0.8.tar.gz 
d6f39a18cb7427089f9d3e704c440409 
/home/narasimhan/Downloads/cabal-dev-0.8.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.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list.
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]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 permissable content.
Contains 00index.tar. However the tar seems to be empty.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA]MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g.libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must
go in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[+]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 package. Works fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.

cabal2spec-diff is OK.

The pacakge ships 00-index.tar. Any idea why this is  being shipped?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.