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=546376 Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #24 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-06-29 09:33:41 EDT --- Sorry, finally getting back to this now after rebuilding all the packages for ghc-6.12.3... Here is the review: +:ok, NA: not applicable MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output ghc-chalmers-lava2000.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ghc-chalmers-lava2000.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum ghc-chalmers-lava2000.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/chalmers-lava2000-1.1.1/libHSchalmers-lava2000-1.1.1-ghc6.12.1.so (fixed with latest macros) ghc-chalmers-lava2000.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/chalmers-lava2000-1.1.1/libHSchalmers-lava2000-1.1.1-ghc6.12.1.so (waived) 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. ghc-chalmers-lava2000-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum ghc-chalmers-lava2000-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ghc-chalmers-lava2000-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-chalmers-lava2000-devel (waived) ghc-chalmers-lava2000-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-chalmers-lava2000-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/chalmers-lava2000-1.1.1/libHSchalmers-lava2000-1.1.1_p.a 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. [+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name} [+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines But please contact the author to request adding headers to the source files. [+] 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 cf8c388bd905a57221169b54a4b4454e chalmers-lava2000-1.1.1.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 [NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations [NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [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. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [+] 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 must contain code, or permissable content. [+] 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. [+] 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: 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: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. Package 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review