[Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=479800

Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #47 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> 2010-02-17 05:23:33 EST ---
Thanks Conrad.

Here is my review, before upstream releases again. ;) :)

Here is the review:

 +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing,  NA: not applicable

MUST Items:
[=] MUST: rpmlint output

hlint.src: W: macro-in-%description %ghc_binlib_package

I don't like this and only noticed this week with
haskeline in koji but it is a cabal2spec templates
error.  I guess we need %{?ghc_binlib_package}.

I suggest making that change before importing.

hlint.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
hlint.src: W: no-buildroot-tag

These are ok: though I maybe revert cabal2spec until rpmlint
is silenced for them.

ghc-hlint.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20-ghc6.12.1.so
ghc-hlint.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20-ghc6.12.1.so
ghc-hlint-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hlint-devel
ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20_p.a
hlint.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/hlint

These are normal for a haskell package.

[+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name}
[+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines
[+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license.
[+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible.
[+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release

6c1be9a1d0835d5aa5028ac1de5dcee3  hlint-1.6.20.tar.gz

[+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch
[+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should 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: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} 
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] 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.

Ok I take you dropped "LicenseClarification" since the .cabal file
now states GPLv2.

[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.


I suggest quoting ghc_binlib_package with ? as above.


Package is APPROVED for fedora.

-- 
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.