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=688499 --- Comment #8 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-07-29 14:17:36 EDT --- [+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. cabal-dev.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. cabal-dev.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed -> sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. cabal-dev.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ghc -> chg The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. cabal-dev.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) sandboxing -> sand boxing, sand-boxing, sandbagging The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. cabal-dev.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sandboxed -> sandboxes, sand boxed, sand-boxed The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. cabal-dev.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ghc -> chg The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. cabal-dev.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cabal-dev Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. cabal-dev.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fake-ghc-cabal-dev Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page. 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 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 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. Build Requires list - OK Summary and description - OK API documentation - OK [+]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. LICENSE file is included. [+]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 cabal-dev-0.8-2.fc15.src/cabal-dev-0.8.tar.gz d6f39a18cb7427089f9d3e704c440409 cabal-dev-0.8-2.fc15.src/cabal-dev-0.8.tar.gz md5sum ~/Downloads/cabal-dev-0.8.tar.gz d6f39a18cb7427089f9d3e704c440409 /home/narasimhan/Downloads/cabal-dev-0.8.tar.gz [+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Built on 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. Checked with rpmquery --list. [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. Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides [+]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. Checked with ls -lR [+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. Contains 00index.tar. However the tar seems to be empty. [+]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. [NA]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: 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 package. Works fine. [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. cabal2spec-diff is OK. The pacakge ships 00-index.tar. Any idea why this is being shipped? -- 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