https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=828735 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002@xxxxxxxxx> --- [+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint -i ghc-numbers-3000.0.0.0-1.fc15.src.rpm ghc-numbers-3000.0.0.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ghc-numbers-devel-3000.0.0.0-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-numbers.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 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 . [+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. BSD [+]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 n9bb1f90a517260e264cfe6900c1a538bumbers-3000.0.0.0.tar.gz ghc-numbers-3000.0.0.0-1.fc16.src/numbers-3000.0.0.0.tar.gz numbers-3000.0.0.0.tar.gz 9bb1f90a517260e264cfe6900c1a538b ghc-numbers-3000.0.0.0-1.fc16.src/numbers-3000.0.0.0.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. [+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. Checked with rpmquery --list [+]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 permissible content. [+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release} rpm -e ghc-numbers error: Failed dependencies: ghc(numbers-3000.0.0.0) = 003415b346b0f314cce12fcf21a874ec is needed by (installed) ghc-numbers-devel-3000.0.0.0-1.fc15.x86_64 ghc-numbers = 3000.0.0.0-1.fc15 is needed by (installed) ghc-numbers-devel-3000.0.0.0-1.fc15.x86_64 [+]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 packages. Loaded Data.Number.Natural into ghci. Loads fine. [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. cabal2spec-diff is OK. APPROVED. Please provide a different summary and description for the package in the spec file. -- 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