[Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Aug 25 14:43:41 UTC 2009
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=426752
Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|needinfo?(loupgaroublond at gm |needinfo?
|ail.com) |
--- Comment #28 from Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond at gmail.com> 2009-08-25 10:43:37 EDT ---
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.[1]
[yankee at koan ghc-X11-xft]$ rpmlint -iv *{spec,rpm}
ghc-X11-xft.src: I: checking
ghc-X11-xft.src: I: checking
ghc-X11-xft-devel.i586: I: checking
ghc-X11-xft-devel.ppc: I: checking
ghc-X11-xft-devel.x86_64: I: checking
ghc-X11-xft-doc.i586: I: checking
ghc-X11-xft-doc.i586: E: description-line-too-long This package contains
development documentation files for the ghc-X11-xft library.
Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.
ghc-X11-xft-doc.ppc: I: checking
ghc-X11-xft-doc.ppc: E: description-line-too-long This package contains
development documentation files for the ghc-X11-xft library.
Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.
ghc-X11-xft-doc.x86_64: I: checking
ghc-X11-xft-doc.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package contains
development documentation files for the ghc-X11-xft library.
Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding
this number, cut it to fit in two lines.
ghc-X11-xft-prof.i586: I: checking
ghc-X11-xft-prof.i586: E: devel-dependency ghc-X11-xft-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-X11-xft-prof.i586: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-X11-xft-prof.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/X11-xft-0.3/libHSX11-xft-0.3_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
ghc-X11-xft-prof.ppc: I: checking
ghc-X11-xft-prof.ppc: E: devel-dependency ghc-X11-xft-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-X11-xft-prof.ppc: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-X11-xft-prof.ppc: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/X11-xft-0.3/libHSX11-xft-0.3_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
ghc-X11-xft-prof.x86_64: I: checking
ghc-X11-xft-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-X11-xft-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-X11-xft-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-X11-xft-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.3/X11-xft-0.3/libHSX11-xft-0.3_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
11 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings.
>>> CHECK --> All normal for GHC packages with one exception. I think cabal2spec is generating the description errors because i had the same problem on another review.
n
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
>>> CHECK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
>>> CHECK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
>>> CHECK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
>>> CHECK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[3]
>>> CHECK
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.[4]
>>> CHECK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
>>> CHECK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
>>> CHECK
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. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
>>> CHECK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
>>> CHECK
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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
>>> CHECK
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
>>> CHECK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create
a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create
that directory. [12]
>>> CHECK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [13]
>>> CHECK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [14]
>>> CHECK
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
>>> CHECK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
>>> CHECK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
>>> CHECK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
>>> CHECK
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present. [18]
>>> CHECK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [22]
>>> MISSING
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24]
>>> CHECK
MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25]
>>> CHECK
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26]
>>> CHECK
SHOULD Items:
Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but
is not required to do.
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. [27]
>>> CHECK
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [29]
>>> CHECK
SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. [30]
>>> CHECK
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
>>> CHECK
SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency. [22]
>>> MISSING
Resolution: Not yet passed. Please add in the last depedencies and fix the
description.
Congrats on the baby :)
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list