[Bug 630223] Review Request: ghc-failure - A simple type class for success/failure computations
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sun Dec 5 09:47:23 UTC 2010
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630223
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> 2010-12-05 04:47:22 EST ---
Sorry for the delay, was down with fever. Here is the review.
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-failure.spec ghc-failure-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.i686.rpm
ghc-failure-devel-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.i686.rpm
ghc-failure-prof-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.i686.rpm ghc-failure-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
ghc-failure.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-failure-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-failure-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-failure-prof.i686: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-failure-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/ghc-6.12.3/failure-0.1.0.1/libHSfailure-0.1.0.1_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
ghc-failure.src: W: strange-permission ghc-failure.spec 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the bsase 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.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK
%clean is ignored - present anyway. OK
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 .
[+]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 text file not include
[+]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 ghc-failure-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.src/failure-0.1.0.1.tar.gz
9c9c1ab5422de9ef11bc3ef0de7b5b12
ghc-failure-0.1.0.1-1.fc14.src/failure-0.1.0.1.tar.gz
md5sum ~/Downloads/failure-0.1.0.1.tar.gz
9c9c1ab5422de9ef11bc3ef0de7b5b12
/home/lvaikunt/Downloads/failure-0.1.0.1.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Yes, built on i686
[+]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.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[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.
Tested with a combination of rpmquery --list and 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.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable 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: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[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.
Tested with a combination of rpmquery --list and rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+]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.
Installed the packages. Tested by importing the module in a simple code.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
APPROVED.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list