[Bug 828720] Review Request: brainfuck - An interpreter of the brainf*ck language

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828720

Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #3 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 *.rpm ../brainfuck.spec 
brainfuck.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C brainfuck
The name of the package is repeated in its summary.  This is often redundant
information and looks silly in various programs' output.  Make the summary
brief and to the point without including redundant information in it.

brainfuck.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C brainfuck
The name of the package is repeated in its summary.  This is often redundant
information and looks silly in various programs' output.  Make the summary
brief and to the point without including redundant information in it.

brainfuck.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/brainfuck-0.1/LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled.  Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.

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

ghc-brainfuck.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/brainfuck-0.1/LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled.  Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.

ghc-brainfuck.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/ghc-brainfuck-0.1/LICENSE
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled.  Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.

4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 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 - Not OK, please provide better summary and
description.
        API documentation - OK, in devel package.

[+]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 brainfuck-0.1.tar.gz  brainfuck-0.1-2.fc16.src/brainfuck-0.1.tar.gz 
e3a382b42cb4f431574a6401ab7d45a8e18aae21aee9a6a46c11e5489e305c53 
brainfuck-0.1.tar.gz
e3a382b42cb4f431574a6401ab7d45a8e18aae21aee9a6a46c11e5489e305c53 
brainfuck-0.1-2.fc16.src/brainfuck-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
[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.
Checked with ls -lR.
[+]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.
[+]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}
[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: 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 package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
Built on x86_64 and x86.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Ran bf. Loaded Language.Brainfuck into 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.
[-]SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

cabal2spec-diff is OK.

Please fix summary and description in the spec file. 

APPROVED.

Request upstream for a man page. In ghc-show, you have provided a patch for
fixing incorrect fsf address. Are you planning to provide the same patch here?

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