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=630272 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-10-03 03:59:24 EDT --- [+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint -i ghc-tagsoup-0.11-2.fc14.src.rpm ghc-tagsoup-0.11-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm ghc-tagsoup-devel-0.11-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm ghc-tagsoup-prof-0.11-2.fc14.x86_64.rpm ghc-tagsoup.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-tagsoup.src: W: strange-permission ghc-tagsoup.spec 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. ghc-tagsoup.src: W: strange-permission tagsoup-0.11.tar.gz 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. ghc-tagsoup.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-tagsoup-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-tagsoup-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-tagsoup-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-tagsoup-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/tagsoup-0.11/libHStagsoup-0.11_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings Comments : Usage documentation is included as tagsoup.htm [+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. Naming-Yes Version-release - Matches License - OK No prebuilt external bits - OK Spec legibity - OK Package template - OK Arch support - OK Libexecdir - OK rpmlint - yes changelogs - OK Source url tag - OK, validated. Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK %clean is ignored - present anyway. OK Build Requires list - OK Summary and description - OK API documentation - OK, in devel package [+]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: 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. [+]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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. md5sum ghc-tagsoup-0.11-2.fc14.src/tagsoup-0.11.tar.gz 275999b35f81b1abc4292d8299eec76c ghc-tagsoup-0.11-2.fc14.src/tagsoup-0.11.tar.gz md5sum ~/Downloads/tagsoup-0.11.tar.gz 275999b35f81b1abc4292d8299eec76c ~/Downloads/tagsoup-0.11.tar.gz [+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Built on i686, x86_64 [+]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. [NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro [NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [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. [+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+]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. developer documentation goes into the devel package [+]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: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release} [NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section [+]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: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains 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. [+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Yes, installed the packages. No errors [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. cabal2spec-diff is OK. 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