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=479800 Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #47 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-17 05:23:33 EST --- Thanks Conrad. Here is my review, before upstream releases again. ;) :) Here is the review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing, NA: not applicable MUST Items: [=] MUST: rpmlint output hlint.src: W: macro-in-%description %ghc_binlib_package I don't like this and only noticed this week with haskeline in koji but it is a cabal2spec templates error. I guess we need %{?ghc_binlib_package}. I suggest making that change before importing. hlint.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install hlint.src: W: no-buildroot-tag These are ok: though I maybe revert cabal2spec until rpmlint is silenced for them. ghc-hlint.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20-ghc6.12.1.so ghc-hlint.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20-ghc6.12.1.so ghc-hlint-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hlint-devel ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20_p.a hlint.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/hlint These are normal for a haskell package. [+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name} [+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines [+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license. [+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible. [+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release 6c1be9a1d0835d5aa5028ac1de5dcee3 hlint-1.6.20.tar.gz [+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch [+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+] 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 must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Large documentation files should 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: 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 contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] 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. Ok I take you dropped "LicenseClarification" since the .cabal file now states GPLv2. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. I suggest quoting ghc_binlib_package with ? as above. Package is APPROVED for fedora. -- 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