https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1321963 Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. Haskell packaging guidelines applies, so it is probably OK. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/yarda/git-fedora /ghc-pipes-safe/review-ghc-pipes-safe/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Haskell packaging guidelines apply. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Haskell packaging guidelines applies. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 225280 bytes in 20 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines It seems it mostly complies with the Haskell packaging guidelines. [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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 is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Packager: Jaroslav Škarvada <jskarvad@xxxxxxxxxx> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags False positive [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. Untested. [!]: Latest version is packaged. 2.2.3 is the latest version, but according to the packager it has unresolved deps, so probably OK. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. I have really no idea what the haskell macros do, but hopefully they do what is needed. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-pipes-safe-2.2.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm ghc-pipes-safe-devel-2.2.2-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm ghc-pipes-safe-2.2.2-1.fc22.src.rpm ghc-pipes-safe.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmanaged -> unman aged, unman-aged, managed ghc-pipes-safe.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-pipes-safe.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmanaged -> unman aged, unman-aged, managed 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ghc-pipes-safe.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmanaged -> unman aged, unman-aged, managed ghc-pipes-safe.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- ghc-pipes-safe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(base-4.7.0.2-cb23b5265b6e147094c0cd9ac819acb1) ghc(containers-0.5.5.1-d7910f1cd81272c1f31ca9f71d0f206e) ghc(exceptions-0.6.1-7fb6fec54ce5f76170ef358fff376c11) ghc(pipes-4.1.4-5b10aba0ff0f9096fb2801fe891155c5) ghc(transformers-0.3.0.0-6458c21515cab7c1cf21e53141557a1c) libHSarray-0.5.0.0-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.7.0.2-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.5.5.1-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.2-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSexceptions-0.6.1-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.1.0-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.1.0-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSmmorph-1.0.4-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSmtl-2.1.3.1-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSpipes-4.1.4-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-0.3.0.0-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-pipes-safe-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(pipes-safe-2.2.2-4202490ce9084a16336de53c6a905d31) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.7.0.2-cb23b5265b6e147094c0cd9ac819acb1) ghc-devel(containers-0.5.5.1-d7910f1cd81272c1f31ca9f71d0f206e) ghc-devel(exceptions-0.6.1-7fb6fec54ce5f76170ef358fff376c11) ghc-devel(pipes-4.1.4-5b10aba0ff0f9096fb2801fe891155c5) ghc-devel(transformers-0.3.0.0-6458c21515cab7c1cf21e53141557a1c) ghc-pipes-safe(x86-64) Provides -------- ghc-pipes-safe: ghc(pipes-safe-2.2.2-4202490ce9084a16336de53c6a905d31) ghc-pipes-safe ghc-pipes-safe(x86-64) libHSpipes-safe-2.2.2-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) ghc-pipes-safe-devel: ghc-devel(pipes-safe-2.2.2-4202490ce9084a16336de53c6a905d31) ghc-pipes-safe-devel ghc-pipes-safe-devel(x86-64) ghc-pipes-safe-static Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-pipes-safe: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.8.4/pipes-safe-2.2.2/libHSpipes-safe-2.2.2-ghc7.8.4.so Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/pipes-safe-2.2.2/pipes-safe-2.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 05548546c63521aacec35a952e03c748df6251ff188bde292d8e4dc20b77e0ea CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 05548546c63521aacec35a952e03c748df6251ff188bde292d8e4dc20b77e0ea Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ghc-pipes-safe Buildroot used: fedora-22-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Haskell, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review