[Bug 701376] Review Request: ghc-citeproc-hs - Haskell library for the Citation Style Language

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=701376

--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-26 21:22:29 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.

rpmlint -i ghc-citeproc-hs*fc16*.rpm ghc-citeproc-hs.spec 
ghc-citeproc-hs.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell,
Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-citeproc-hs-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell ->
Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

[+]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
        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.
        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.
License is BSD 3 clause variant.
[+]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.
Yes, LICENSE file is included in the base package.

[+]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 ~/Downloads/citeproc-hs-0.3.2.tar.gz 
9d0c3861e858aeed2147ed2deb1deeb8  ~/Downloads/citeproc-hs-0.3.2.tar.gz

md5sum ghc-citeproc-hs-0.3.2-2.fc15.src/citeproc-hs-0.3.2.tar.gz            
9d0c3861e858aeed2147ed2deb1deeb8 
ghc-citeproc-hs-0.3.2-2.fc15.src/citeproc-hs-0.3.2.tar.gz

[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on i686.
[+]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.
The prof files are mentioned directly instead of the template style of using
ghc_pkg_deps. The understanding is that the prof files should
pull in the devel and base packages across f14,f15 and rawhide.

[?]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
Locale files are copied into /usr/share/citeproc-hs-{version}/locales.

[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 permissible content.
Locale files are included in /usr/share

[+]MUST: Large documentation files must 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: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}

rpm -e ghc-citeproc-hs
error: Failed dependencies:
        ghc-citeproc-hs = 0.3.2-2.fc14 is needed by (installed)
ghc-citeproc-hs-devel-0.3.2-2.fc14.i686
rpm -e ghc-citeproc-hs-devel
error: Failed dependencies:
        ghc-citeproc-hs-devel = 0.3.2-2.fc14 is needed by (installed)
ghc-citeproc-hs-prof-0.3.2-2.fc14.i686

[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: 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.
Installed the package. Imported Text.CSL.Eval into ghci. Loads fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.

cabal2spec-diff is OK.

Two doubts: 
1) Will the ghc-{package}-prof files pull in all base/devel packages across
f14,f15 and rawhide?
2) Regarding locales, I find that the xml mechanism is different than using .po
or .mo (correct me if am wrong here). I hope that the application will detect
and handle locales appropriately.

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


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]