[Bug 831038] /usr/bin/derive should be subpackaged

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831038

--- Comment #3 from Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan at gmail.com> ---
Package Review

[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.

$  rpmlint ghc-derive-2.5.8-2.fc18.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$  rpmlint ghc-derive-2.5.8-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$  rpmlint ghc-derive-devel-2.5.8-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm 
ghc-derive-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided ghc-derive-doc
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

$  rpmlint derive-2.5.8-2.fc18.x86_64.rpm 
derive.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C derive
derive.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/derive
derive.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary derive
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 - 
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 ../SOURCES/derive-2.5.8.tar.gz 
e970a39db478eb83710edb8f94c9b4ab  ../SOURCES/derive-2.5.8.tar.gz

$  md5sum derive-2.5.8.tar.gz 
e970a39db478eb83710edb8f94c9b4ab  derive-2.5.8.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.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+]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.
[+]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}
[+]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.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.

Please use separate BuildRequires for each dependency. It is more readable
instead of using CSVs.

APPROVED.

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