[Bug 712280] Review Request: ghc-ghc-mtl - A mtl compatible with GHC-API monads and monad-transformers

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=712280

Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |ON_DEV
              Flags|fedora-review?              |
              Flags|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #7 from Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan at gmail.com> ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.

$ rpmlint ghc-ghc-mtl.spec 
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

$ rpmlint ghc-ghc-mtl-1.0.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm 
ghc-ghc-mtl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monads -> nomads, gonads
ghc-ghc-mtl.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona
ghc-ghc-mtl.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad -> nomad, gonad,
Mona
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint ghc-ghc-mtl-1.0.1.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
ghc-ghc-mtl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monads -> nomads, gonads
ghc-ghc-mtl.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad, gonad,
Mona
ghc-ghc-mtl.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad -> nomad,
gonad, Mona
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

$ rpmlint ghc-ghc-mtl-devel-1.0.1.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm  
ghc-ghc-mtl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monads -> nomads,
gonads
ghc-ghc-mtl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad,
gonad, Mona
ghc-ghc-mtl-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad ->
nomad, gonad, Mona
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
        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

[+]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 ghc-mtl-1.0.1.1.tar.gz 
f63a10a67a3e0f86d96738abd325e25a44b86c280bb531058097f37ec40b9512 
ghc-mtl-1.0.1.1.tar.gz

$  rpm2cpio ghc-ghc-mtl-1.0.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm | cpio -idv
ghc-ghc-mtl.spec
ghc-mtl-1.0.1.1.tar.gz
9 blocks

$  sha256sum ghc-mtl-1.0.1.1.tar.gz 
f63a10a67a3e0f86d96738abd325e25a44b86c280bb531058097f37ec40b9512 
ghc-mtl-1.0.1.1.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 f16,f17 and f18 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.
[+]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 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 Blaze.Text.Double 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.

cabal2spec-diff is OK.

Please write each BR in a separate line before import.

APPROVED.

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