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=479793 Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |petersen@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |petersen@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-14 02:16:26 EDT --- Thanks for the update. For fun I tries to push it through http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/fedora-qa (though that is a little old now apparently). Here is my review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: [rpmlint] packages are clean [+] MUST: base name is ok and matches spec [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPL+ and LGPLv2+ [+] 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. I think better to move it to ghc-cpphs where it actually applies [+] 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. 8a7565ff3b2d7bdb594af4c10c594951 cpphs-1.6.tar.gz [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported 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 [=] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. Hmm, /usr/share/doc/ghc/libraries is owned by ghc-doc but not required by ghc-cpphs - looks like a oversight of the guidelines. Wondering whether we should subpackage haddock docs for this or do something else. [+] 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 contains code [+] 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. ghc-cpphs provides -devel for now [+] 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 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: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. I sent a message to the maintainer asking for the GPL license file to be added in the future. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. Once the above file ownership issue is resolved I think I can approve this, but I will attach a small patch. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review