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=648100 Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-01-06 01:51:35 EST --- Sorry "soon" became 2011... :-/ I note that xml-1.3.7/Text/XML/Light/Lexer.hs is missing a (license) header. It would be good to ask to author to add one. Here is the review: +:ok, NA: not applicable MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output ghc-xml.src: W: strange-permission ghc-xml.spec 0640L ghc-xml.src: W: strange-permission xml-1.3.7.tar.gz 0640L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ghc-xml-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-xml-devel ghc-xml-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-xml-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-7.0.1/xml-1.3.7/libHSxml-1.3.7_p.a 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. These are ok. [+] 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 fc2d7e1a321b4393dd444b16ab6ba669 xml-1.3.7.tar.gz [+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2701815 [+] 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. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] 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. [NA] 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 [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [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: 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: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. Package is 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