[Bug 630222] Review Request: ghc-colour - A model for human colour/color perception

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Sep 17 11:41:17 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=630222

Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com

--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> 2010-09-17 07:41:16 EDT ---
Hi Ben,

Here is my review on this package.  I used the guidelines from
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines . I saw that Jens'
review on another package had some additional items. I used that.

Must items 
+ OK , ! - Not sure , NA - Not Applicable

[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.

ghc-colour.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co
lours, co-lours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-colour.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co lours,
Co-lours, Col ours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-colour.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.3.1-1 ['2.3.1-1.f13',
'2.3.1-1.f13']
The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not
coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package.

ghc-colour.i386: W: executable-stack
/usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/colour-2.3.1/libHScolour-2.3.1-ghc6.12.1.so
The binary declares the stack as executable.  Executable stack is usually an
error as it is only needed if the code contains GCC trampolines or similar
constructs which uses code on the stack.  One common source for needlessly
executable stack cases are object files built from assembler files which don't
define a proper .note.GNU-stack section.

ghc-colour.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co
lours, co-lours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-colour.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co lours,
Co-lours, Col ours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-colour.src: W: strange-permission colour-2.3.1.tar.gz 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.

ghc-colour-devel.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours ->
colors, co lours, co-lours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-colour-devel.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co
lours, Co-lours, Col ours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-colour-prof.i386: E: devel-dependency ghc-colour-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.

ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours ->
colors, co lours, co-lours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co
lours, Co-lours, Col ours
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/colour-2.3.1/libHScolour-2.3.1_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.

4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings.

[+]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-Not sure, nothing mentioned in the LICENSE file.
        No prebuilt external bits - Yes
        Spec legibity - OK
        Package template - OK
        Arch support - No exclude arch
        Libexecdir - OK
        rpmlint - yes
        changelogs - OK
        Source url tag  - OK, validated.
        Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK
        Build Requires list - OK
        Summary and description - OK

[!]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
    No explicit short license name is mentioned.

[!]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
    Depends on previous item

[+]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.

        echo "%{_datadir}/%{pkg_name}-%{version}/CHANGELOG" >> %{name}.files
        echo "%{_datadir}/%{pkg_name}-%{version}/README" >> %{name}.files 
        For consistency, shouldn't the directories in {_datadir} be in the same
name as the package name %{name}?

[+]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 colour-2.3.1.tar.gz 
    5edced36d4c27393ae1ce1389eeb25ad  colour-2.3.1.tar.gz
    [~]$ md5sum ~/Downloads/colour-2.3.1.tar.gz 
    5edced36d4c27393ae1ce1389eeb25ad ~/Downloads/colour-2.3.1.tar.gz


[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
[+]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.
[+]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.
[+]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.
[NA]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 functions as described.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.

cabal2spec-diff is OK.

-- 
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