Bug 578990

Summary: Review Request: nimrod - A new statically typed, imperative programming Language
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Rajesh Krishnan <raj.dev.redhat>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, grue, i, imranceh, notting
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-11-17 08:40:23 EST Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 201449    

Description Rajesh Krishnan 2010-04-01 21:17:18 EDT
Spec URL: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/nimrod.spec
SRPM URL: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/nimrod-0.8.8-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description: A new statically typed, imperative programming language, 
that supports procedural, object oriented, functional 
and generic programming styles while remaining simple 
and efficient.

Additional Notes:
  Tested this on Fedora 12 (x86_64).  Let me know if I need to test it on F13 as well.
  Also ran 'rpmlint' and did not find any major flaws with both the srpm and spec.
Comment 1 Rajesh Krishnan 2010-04-01 21:20:17 EDT
Need sponsor.
Comment 2 Mohammed Imran 2010-04-29 09:02:31 EDT
Let me do a informal Review

Package Review

- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

[imran@localhost SPECS]$ rpmlint nimrod.spec ../RPMS/i586/nimrod-0.8.8-1.fc11.i586.rpm ../SRPMS/nimrod-0.8.8-1.fc11.src.rpm
nimrod.i586: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.8.8 ['0.8.8-1.fc11', '0.8.8-1']
nimrod.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/html/colors.html
nimrod.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/html/docs.txt
nimrod.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/html/os.html
nimrod.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/html/system.html
nimrod.i586: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/examples/sdlex.nim
nimrod.i586: E: wrong-script-interpreter /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/examples/filterex.nim stdtmpl
nimrod.i586: E: wrong-script-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/nimrod-0.8.8/readme.txt
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 7 errors, 105 warnings.

Need to be Fixed
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues
1) Please fix the executable permission on doc/ html/
2) -doc package will be better option here,create a seperate package for doc and examples
3) see the below link to resolve rpmlint issues
4) Add 0.8.8-1 in changelog
5) Description should be divided into line of each < 80 chars
6) gpl.html = LICENSE should be in %doc
7) Get rid of unnecessary # BuildRequires:  # % configure 

[!] rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review

[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format

[!]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.

[x]  Package is not relocatable.
[x]  Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[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.
License type:GPLv2

[!]  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 %doc.

[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    :6a254abb08ff87923321f48cabf46038 
MD5SUM upstream package:6a254abb08ff87923321f48cabf46038 
[x]  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[-]  The spec file handles locales properly.
[?]  ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.

[!]  Permissions on files are set properly. 

[x]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[x]  Package consistently uses macros.
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[!]  Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]  Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[?]  Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[?]  Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
libs are needed,but in your RPM there isnt any libs 
[-]  Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
[-]  Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]  Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Comment 3 Mohammed Imran 2010-05-30 09:53:34 EDT
Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2010-11-17 08:40:23 EST
No response to review commentary or pings in half a year; closing.
Comment 5 Christopher Meng 2013-06-05 11:29:55 EDT

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 971059 ***