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=630208 Dave Ludlow <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |dave@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review?, needinfo+, | |needinfo?(mathstuf@xxxxxxxx | |m) --- Comment #1 from Dave Ludlow <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-11 13:29:20 EDT --- I am utterly unfamiliar with Haskell. I'm happy to negotiate on any point, given my ignorance. + OK - Not OK ? Questionable / N/A [-] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. RPMLINT ghc-csv.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US franca -> francs, franc, franc a ghc-csv.src: W: strange-permission csv-0.1.1.tar.gz 0640L ghc-csv.src: W: strange-permission ghc-csv.spec 0640L ghc-csv.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US franca -> francs, franc, franc a ghc-csv-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US franca -> francs, franc, franc a ghc-csv-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-csv-devel ghc-csv-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US franca -> francs, franc, franc a ghc-csv-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-csv-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/csv-0.1.1/libHScsv-0.1.1_p.a 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. The strange permissions are exactly that. Wouldn't 0644 make more sense? Since ghc-csv-prof is a profiling package, I assume that its errors and warnings are irrelevant. A comment to this effect in the .spec would be nice. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name} [+] 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. [+] MUST: The license is in %doc as provided. [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [-] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. There is apparently some pretty good voodoo in ghc-rpm-macros. I'd like to see some comments describing that this is the reason for common_summary being defined buy only appearing once and the outright lack of %files and %doc - at least, I'm assuming that that's the reason. As-is, I'd say that this .spec file is not legible to someone without an existing ghc background. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source. 312cdb7d59528a161034b3397af10266 ~/rpmbuild/SOURCES/csv-0.1.1.tar.gz 312cdb7d59528a161034b3397af10266 csv-0.1.1.tar.gz [+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. [/] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work... [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [+] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. [?] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. Is it fair to say that this doesn't apply to /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/csv-0.1.1/libHScsv-0.1.1-ghc6.12.3.so? [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [+] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable... [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [?] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. I'm assuming that ghc-rpm-macros enforces this, but I have no easy way of knowing. Legibility is not there. [-] 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. The 0640 permissions found by rpmlint are probably not "proper". There is no legible %files section or comment. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc... [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [?] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. ghc-csv-devel contains /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/csv-0.1.1/libHScsv-0.1.1.a; I'm unsure if this is qualifies as a static library. [+] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1)... [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [/] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file [+] 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: If the source package does not include license text... [/] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+] 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. [28] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2461660 [?] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. I don't have the background to do any significant testing. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [/] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc)... [/] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin... [/] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages... BLOCKERS ghc-csv.src: W: strange-permission csv-0.1.1.tar.gz 0640L ghc-csv.src: W: strange-permission ghc-csv.spec 0640L [-] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. At a minimum, please provide a comment with a link to some documentation on the RPM macro voodoo in the .spec file. As I said before, I'm willing to be flexible since this is an area I'm totally unfamiliar with. Overall, it looks pretty good. -- 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