[Bug 759045] Review Request: ghc-base16-bytestring - ByteString hex encoding and decoding

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Dec 3 04:59:47 UTC 2011


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=759045

Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002 at gmail.com> 2011-12-02 23:59:46 EST ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.

rpmlint  -i ghc-base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
ghc-base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm
ghc-base16-bytestring-devel-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 
../ghc-base16-bytestring.spec 
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 - OK BSD license. License text attached.
        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.
        Build Requires list - OK
        Summary and description - OK
        API documentation - OK

[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
Licensed as BSD.
[+]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 is included.
[+]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 base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3.tar.gz 
d340e105d274c6ccca59713211805035  base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3.tar.gz

md5sum
ghc-base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.src/base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3.tar.gz 
d340e105d274c6ccca59713211805035 
ghc-base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.src/base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3.tar.gz

[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.

[+]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.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[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.
Checked with 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.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]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.
[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}
 rpm -e ghc-base16-bytestring
error: Failed dependencies:
 ghc(base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3) = adb9623f350c3974db728310c2475129 is needed by
(installed) ghc-base16-bytestring-devel-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.x86_64
 ghc-base16-bytestring = 0.1.1.3-1.fc16 is needed by (installed)
ghc-base16-bytestring-devel-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.x86_64

[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
Checked with rpmquery --list and rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]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. Imported Data.ByteString.Base16 into ghci. Works fine
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+]SHOULD : If source files do not have license mentioned, the packager SHOULD
query upstream.

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