[Bug 664221] Review Request: ghc-cautious-file - Provides ways to write a file cautiously

[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=664221

Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Status Whiteboard|Ready                       |
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> 2012-02-25 02:32:02 EST ---
Sorry for long wait - been busy with ARM and other "distractions"...


Here is the review:

 +:ok, NA: not applicable

MUST Items:
[] MUST: rpmlint output [1]

ghc-cautious-file.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ghc-cautious-file.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix ->
posit
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ghc-cautious-file-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix
-> posit
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

waived

[+] MUST: package named according to Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name} [2]
[+] MUST: meet Packaging Guidelines
[+] MUST: Fedora approved license and Licensing Guidelines
[+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license. [3]
[+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source [4]
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English [5] and legible.
[6]
[+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release (from upstream URL)

ca18207cccb0ab7c7c2649133943ccc4  cautious-file-1.0.tar.gz

[!] MUST: successfully compile and build into binary rpms on a primary arch [7]

Srpm doesn't build in mock/koji though:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3817824
due to missing BR on bytestring.

[NA] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [8]
[-] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires

See preceding comment.

[NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations [9]
[NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's
default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [11]
[NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review [12]
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [13]
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[14]
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [15]
[+] MUST: consistently use macros [16]
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
[NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [18]
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. [18]
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
[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. [19]
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency [21]
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec. [20]
[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. [22]
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. [23]
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]

SHOULD Items:
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27]
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [29]

Please fix the above missing BR when importing.

Package is 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.