[Bug 854132] Review Request: ghc-show - Haskell show library

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854132

Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint  -i ghc-show-0.4.1.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
ghc-show-devel-0.4.1.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ghc-show-0.4.1.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
../ghc-show.spec 
ghc-show.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ShowQ -> Show Q, Show,
Shows
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-show-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ShowQ -> Show Q,
Show, Shows
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-show.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ShowQ -> Show Q, Show,
Shows
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

3 packages and 1 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, GPLv2
        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.
GPLv2
[+]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 sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
sha256sum show-0.4.1.2.tar.gz ghc-show-0.4.1.2-1.fc16.src/show-0.4.1.2.tar.gz 
bcb4ad34c529c47547d52debba61d0ff4b8af7ea7b0fcb2668e7d9ae648757e1 
show-0.4.1.2.tar.gz
bcb4ad34c529c47547d52debba61d0ff4b8af7ea7b0fcb2668e7d9ae648757e1 
ghc-show-0.4.1.2-1.fc16.src/show-0.4.1.2.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64. Koji builds for x86 and x86_64 done by packager.
[+]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. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
API documentation in -devel package.
[+]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}
[+]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: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. 
[-]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Loaded SimpleReflect in ghci. Loads fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.

cabal2spec-diff is OK.

APPROVED.

Please provide a different summary for the packages.

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