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=732344 --- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002@xxxxxxxxx> 2011-10-07 05:05:36 EDT --- [+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint -i ghc-hashable-1.1.2.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-hashable-1.1.2.1-1.fc16.src.rpm ghc-hashable-devel-1.1.2.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-hashable.spec 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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, BSD 3 clause 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 [+]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 hashable-1.1.2.1.tar.gz 1ec3a6556ec875d0f643a97775d8a4bb hashable-1.1.2.1.tar.gz md5sum ghc-hashable-1.1.2.1-1.fc15.src/hashable-1.1.2.1.tar.gz 1ec3a6556ec875d0f643a97775d8a4bb ghc-hashable-1.1.2.1-1.fc15.src/hashable-1.1.2.1.tar.gz [+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Built on x86_64 and 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. [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. [+]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. [NA]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-hashable error: Failed dependencies: ghc(hashable-1.1.2.1) = e95e13c1445cd741ea8b74a131dbe54f is needed by (installed) ghc-hashable-devel-1.1.2.1-1.fc16.x86_64 ghc-hashable = 1.1.2.1-1.fc16 is needed by (installed) ghc-hashable-devel-1.1.2.1-1.fc16.x86_64 [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. LICENSE file is included. [+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Installed the packages. Installs fine. Loaded Data.Hashable into ghci. Loads fine. [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. cabal2spec-diff is not OK. Please upgrade to latest cabal2spec. 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