Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-io-storage/ghc-io-storage.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-io-storage/ghc-io-storage-0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm Description: This library allows an application to extend the 'global state' hidden inside the IO monad with semi-arbitrary data. Data is required to be 'Typeable'. The library provides an essentially unbounded number of key-value stores indexed by strings, with each key within the stores also being a string. % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-io-storage.src: W: strange-permission io-storage-0.3.tar.gz 0640L ghc-io-storage.src: W: strange-permission ghc-io-storage.spec 0640L ghc-io-storage-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-io-storage-devel ghc-io-storage-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-io-storage-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/io-storage-0.3/libHSio-storage-0.3_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-io-storage/ghc-io-storage.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-io-storage/ghc-io-storage-0.3-2.fc18.src.rpm ghc-io-storage.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona ghc-io-storage.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona ghc-io-storage.src: W: strange-permission io-storage-0.3.tar.gz 0640L ghc-io-storage.src: W: strange-permission ghc-io-storage.spec 0640L ghc-io-storage.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona ghc-io-storage.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona ghc-io-storage-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona ghc-io-storage-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Taking this review
Is the 'notready' flag in the whiteboard still accurate? Presumably this is ready for review now
I forget what Jens uses as the prereq for setting the notready flag. I think it's related to deps that have cropped up since the review was filed. It may be a priority marker as well. I'll ask once he shows up on IRC.
Presumably we should clear it when reviewing, and it's just to spare people from being nagged unnecessarily by people asking when the review will be done - so I'll just clear it. Same as 630221 - the source MD5 checksum does not match upstream; please update and I'll then approve it. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/michel/sources/fedora/projects/FedoraReview/src/630228/io-storage-0.3.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : f0d3a8331ee996f46533ee764ace88ae MD5SUM upstream package : e036030c454cb57b3658615e36bfb32d [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/michel/sources/fedora/projects/FedoraReview/src/630228/io-storage-0.3.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : f0d3a8331ee996f46533ee764ace88ae MD5SUM upstream package : e036030c454cb57b3658615e36bfb32d See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins:
Yes, here NotReady usually means the submission had stagnated: ie either needed a refresh to current cabal2spec templates or the version is no longer current say. Sometimes also use it when submitters don't update their packages in response to issues, etc.
Sorry for delays. I've been Internet-less besides the phone and work (neither of which have my packaging work on them) for a while now and will be until I move (hopefully by the end of the month).
Ben, did you sort out the md5sum - sounds a little worrying or your download got mangled?
Closing out old Haskell Package Reviews that use deprecated macros like %ghc_devel_package, etc, which are no longer available in F20 Rawhide. Please update your package using cabal-rpm-0.8.x or later and re-open or file a new Review Request. Thanks!