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=550105 Rakesh Pandit <rpandit@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |rpandit@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Rakesh Pandit <rpandit@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-01-10 12:44:27 EST --- [x] Build - http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1912376 fine [x] rpmlint - ok ghc-parsec.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ghc-parsec.src: W: no-buildroot-tag 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [rakesh@dhcp1-96 SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/rakesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/ghc-parsec-2.1.0.1-2.fc13.i686.rpm ghc-parsec.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/parsec-2.1.0.1/libHSparsec-2.1.0.1-ghc6.12.1.so ghc-parsec.i686: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/parsec-2.1.0.1/libHSparsec-2.1.0.1-ghc6.12.1.so 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Ignore [rakesh@dhcp1-96 SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/rakesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/ghc-parsec-devel-2.1.0.1-2.fc13.i686.rpm ghc-parsec-devel.i686: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Ignore [rakesh@dhcp1-96 SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/rakesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/ghc-parsec-doc-2.1.0.1-2.fc13.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. fine [rakesh@dhcp1-96 SPECS]$ rpmlint /home/rakesh/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/ghc-parsec-prof-2.1.0.1-2.fc13.i686.rpm ghc-parsec-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-parsec-devel ghc-parsec-prof.i686: W: no-documentation ghc-parsec-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/parsec-2.1.0.1/libHSparsec-2.1.0.1_p.a 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Ignore [x] name fine [x] URL fine [-] source ok from srpm f09c7fcbf66c39cc4de2a50dbb1374ba82168b52 (sha1sum) still to check from http://hackage.haskell.org/ as it went down [x] spec name fine [x] license ok (copy present) and source has marking [x] source tree ok (no binaries present) [x] archs - fine [x] spec file legible and in american english [x] BR's ok [x] %files ok [x] folders owned - ok /usr/share/doc/ghc-mtl-1.1.0.2 /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/mtl-1.1.0.2 [x] source builds fine on fedora ghc archs [x] no bundled dependencies [x] %clean section ok [x] filenames - ok (valid) [x] profiling ok [x] lib goes to %{_libdir}/ghc-%{ghc_version}/%{pkg_name}-%{version} [x] new macros APPROVED You may ask for cvs request. I have done manual source traversal and it is safe. Will verify whether it is actually from upstream in a while when site is up. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review