[Bug 885350] Review Request: ghc-date-cache - Date cacher

Sat Jan 12 04:42:39 UTC 2013

Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885350

Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #4 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-date-cache-devel-0.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
ghc-date-cache-0.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ghc-date-cache-0.3.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
../ghc-date-cache.spec 
ghc-date-cache-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cacher -> cachet,
cache, catcher
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-date-cache-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
The latest changelog entry doesn't contain a version. Please insert the
version that is coherent with the version of the package and rebuild it.

ghc-date-cache.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cacher -> cachet,
cache, catcher
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-date-cache.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
The latest changelog entry doesn't contain a version. Please insert the
version that is coherent with the version of the package and rebuild it.

ghc-date-cache.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cacher -> cachet, cache,
catcher
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-date-cache.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
The latest changelog entry doesn't contain a version. Please insert the
version that is coherent with the version of the package and rebuild it.

ghc-date-cache.src: W: strange-permission date-cache-0.3.0.tar.gz 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

ghc-date-cache.src: W: strange-permission ghc-date-cache.spec 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

Changelog is incorrect. Please correct it before importing the package.

[+]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 license.
[+]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-date-cache-0.3.0-1.fc19.src/date-cache-0.3.0.tar.gz 
abce44f11dd9da4abaca9e33da2c74bd32b42fea027d171c03b6c10cda62303f 
ghc-date-cache-0.3.0-1.fc19.src/date-cache-0.3.0.tar.gz
sha256sum date-cache-0.3.0.tar.gz 
abce44f11dd9da4abaca9e33da2c74bd32b42fea027d171c03b6c10cda62303f 
date-cache-0.3.0.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
[+]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.
[+]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}
[+]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.
Installed the packages. Loaded System.Date.Cache into ghci. Loads fine

cabal-rpm-diff is OK.

Please correct changelog before importing the package.

APPROVED.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=cUeBI1tP7m&a=cc_unsubscribe