[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 748701] Review Request: ghc-wai-extra - Basic WAI handlers and middleware
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Oct 26 01:44:36 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=748701
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> 2011-10-25 21:44:35 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-wai-extra-0.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
ghc-wai-extra-0.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
ghc-wai-extra-devel-0.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-wai-extra.spec
ghc-wai-extra.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) middleware -> middle
ware, middle-ware, middleweight
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-wai-extra.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.3-0
['0.4.3-1.fc16', '0.4.3-1']
The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not
coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.
ghc-wai-extra.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) middleware -> middle
ware, middle-ware, middleweight
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-wai-extra.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.3-0
['0.4.3-1.fc16', '0.4.3-1']
The latest entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not
coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.
ghc-wai-extra-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) middleware ->
middle ware, middle-ware, middleweight
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 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, Incorrect changelog entry needs to be fixed.
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, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
BSD 2 clause.
[+]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 ghc-wai-extra-0.4.3-1.fc15.src/wai-extra-0.4.3.tar.gz
391885d438355135df4300234be9ebab
ghc-wai-extra-0.4.3-1.fc15.src/wai-extra-0.4.3.tar.gz
md5sum wai-extra-0.4.3.tar.gz
391885d438355135df4300234be9ebab wai-extra-0.4.3.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
[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.
[+]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.
[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.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}rpm -e ghc-wai-extra
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(wai-extra-0.4.3) = 753c3bcc753199873c26aa7455d6c361 is needed by
(installed) ghc-wai-extra-devel-0.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64
ghc-wai-extra = 0.4.3-1.fc16 is needed by (installed)
ghc-wai-extra-devel-0.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64
[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.
LICESE file is included.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[-]SHOULD : If source files do not have license mentioned, the packager SHOULD
query upstream.
Not present.Could you please request upstrea to include license information in
each of the source files?
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
Needs fixing:
Changelog entry is incorrect.
APPROVED.
--
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.
More information about the haskell-devel
mailing list