https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_DEV --- 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-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ghc-arrows-devel-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-arrows.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 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. License is 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. [+]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 sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. sha256sum arrows-0.4.4.0.tar.gz ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc16.src/arrows-0.4.4.0.tar.gz 4999ba909061f5bede09e6116e2cac1cf89f04d3429a4a2be6ef79a677d89bb5 arrows-0.4.4.0.tar.gz 4999ba909061f5bede09e6116e2cac1cf89f04d3429a4a2be6ef79a677d89bb5 ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc16.src/arrows-0.4.4.0.tar.gz [+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [+]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. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release} ghc(arrows-0.4.4.0) = c871892887d8c9a8a81b6aba26d0627c is needed by (installed) ghc-arrows-devel-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64 ghc-arrows = 0.4.4.0-1.fc17 is needed by (installed) ghc-arrows-devel-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.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. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Installed the packages. Loaded Control.Arrow.Transformer into ghci. Loads fine. [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. cabal2spec-diff is OK. APPROVED. -- 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