[Bug 546376] Review Request: ghc-chalmers-lava2000 - Haskell hardware description library

[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=546376

Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #24 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> 2010-06-29 09:33:41 EDT ---
Sorry, finally getting back to this now after rebuilding all the packages for
ghc-6.12.3...


Here is the review:

 +:ok, NA: not applicable

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint output

ghc-chalmers-lava2000.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ghc-chalmers-lava2000.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell ->
Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
ghc-chalmers-lava2000.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/chalmers-lava2000-1.1.1/libHSchalmers-lava2000-1.1.1-ghc6.12.1.so
(fixed with latest macros)
ghc-chalmers-lava2000.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/chalmers-lava2000-1.1.1/libHSchalmers-lava2000-1.1.1-ghc6.12.1.so
(waived)
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
ghc-chalmers-lava2000-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell ->
Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
ghc-chalmers-lava2000-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
ghc-chalmers-lava2000-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency
ghc-chalmers-lava2000-devel (waived)
ghc-chalmers-lava2000-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-chalmers-lava2000-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/chalmers-lava2000-1.1.1/libHSchalmers-lava2000-1.1.1_p.a
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

[+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name}
[+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines

But please contact the author to request adding headers to the source files.

[+] 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

cf8c388bd905a57221169b54a4b4454e  chalmers-lava2000-1.1.1.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
[NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations
[NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[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. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
[+] 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.
[+] 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.
[+] 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: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

SHOULD Items:
[+] 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.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.

Package 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.