[Bug 629124] Review Request: ghc-libmpd - Haskell library for mpd communication

[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=629124

Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> 2010-09-01 04:30:21 EDT ---
Here is the review:

 +:ok,  NA: not applicable

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint output

ghc-libmpd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell,
Skellum
ghc-libmpd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mpd -> mod, mp, pd
ghc-libmpd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpd -> mod, mp, pd
ghc-libmpd.src: W: strange-permission ghc-libmpd.spec 0640L
ghc-libmpd.src: W: strange-permission libmpd-0.4.1.tar.gz 0640L
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
ghc-libmpd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
ghc-libmpd.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mpd -> mod, mp, pd
ghc-libmpd.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpd -> mod, mp, pd
ghc-libmpd.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/libmpd-0.4.1/libHSlibmpd-0.4.1-ghc6.12.1.so
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
ghc-libmpd-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
ghc-libmpd-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mpd -> mod, mp, pd
ghc-libmpd-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpd -> mod,
mp, pd
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
ghc-libmpd-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-libmpd-devel
ghc-libmpd-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mpd -> mod, mp, pd
ghc-libmpd-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpd -> mod, mp,
pd
ghc-libmpd-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-libmpd-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/libmpd-0.4.1/libHSlibmpd-0.4.1_p.a
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.

Can all be waived.

[+] 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

8cd0ca17ff8833213021b21a45f310f8  tmp/libmpd-0.4.1.tar.gz

[+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2439729

[+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires

QuickCheck should really be dropped but guess it can be done for 0.4.2.

[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.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.

Might be nice to add the README.  I think Ben was already talking about doing
it.

[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. 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.
[NA] 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
[+] 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 package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency.


Package APPROVED

Do feel free to update to 0.4.2 before building and drop the QuickCheck dep.
You could explicitly BR ghc-QuickCheck-devel if you want to add %check. :)

-- 
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.