SPEC file URL: https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/ghc-Diff.spec?attredirects=0&d=1 SRPM file URL: https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/ghc-Diff-0.1.2-1.fc14.src.rpm?attredirects=0&d=1 rpmlint output: rpmlint -i ghc-Diff.spec ghc-Diff*fc15*.rpm ghc-Diff-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-Diff-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-Diff-prof.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-Diff-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-7.0.1/Diff-0.1.2/libHSDiff-0.1.2_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. 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
As earlier discussed on Fedora haskell-devel list, dropping libraries for now from the toplevel of Haskell-pkg-reviews, so we, the Haskell SIG, can focus more on getting Haskell apps into Fedora. To get you library back under the tracker please submit a bin or binlib package that depends on this library and make this bug block that package review. It is a good idea to submit full stacks of packages and then to add the toplevel program to the tracker.
http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-Diff-0.1.2-2.fc14.src.rpm http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-Diff.spec rpmlint -i ghc-Diff.spec ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ghc-Diff-0.1.2-2.fc14.src.rpm ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/ghc-Diff-*.rpm ghc-Diff-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-Diff-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-Diff-prof.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-Diff-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.3/Diff-0.1.2/libHSDiff-0.1.2_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. 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
SRPM file : http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc15.src.rpm Spec file : http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-Diff.spec rpmlint output: rpmlint -i ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc15.src.rpm ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ghc-Diff-devel-0.1.3-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-Diff.spec 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3721049
http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/Diff
Sorry may be good if you can update to cabal2spec-0.25.5 so that this will build on f18.
Kalpa, do you have time to review this or should we look for another reviewer?
Hi Jens, Extremely sorry for not being touch with the review, I almost forgot this. I'm busy with my exams at the uni right now, and the exam will continue for another one weeks time. If you can wait till then I'm happy to review or else you may find another reviewer, no worries.
No worries - just wanted to check in to see if you were still interested in this review. I guess we can wait a little more, thanks.
Okay I resetting the reviewer, but Kalpa feel free to pick up the review again when you have time. I think the package needs to be updated to 0.25.5 anyway to build in rawhide.
http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-Diff.spec http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc18.src.rpm rpmlint -i ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc18.src.rpm ghc-Diff-devel-0.1.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-Diff.spec ghc-Diff-devel.x86_64: W: obsolete-not-provided ghc-Diff-doc If a package is obsoleted by a compatible replacement, the obsoleted package should also be provided in order to not cause unnecessary dependency breakage. If the obsoleting package is not a compatible replacement for the old one, leave out the Provides. 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
fedora-review output: Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [ ]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [ ]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/ghc-7.4.1/Diff-0.1.3/libHSDiff-0.1.3-ghc7.4.1.so [-]: MUST Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. ==== Generic ==== [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 [ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: 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 [ ]: 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 [ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: 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. [!]: 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. [ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: MUST Package installs properly. [ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint ghc-Diff-devel-0.1.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm ghc-Diff-devel.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided ghc-Diff-doc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/petersen/pkgreview/ghc-Diff/664151/Diff-0.1.3.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 6a8a47315001717780b3dd025f59da85 MD5SUM upstream package : 6a8a47315001717780b3dd025f59da85 [ ]: 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. [ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: 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. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text *>> Included with %ghc_files [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint ghc-Diff-devel-0.1.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm ghc-Diff-devel.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided ghc-Diff-doc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. *>> This is ok and from ghc-rpm-macros. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/ghc-7.4.1/Diff-0.1.3/libHSDiff-0.1.3-ghc7.4.1.so See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages *>> Ok for Haskell packages. Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 External plugins:
Here is my review: +:ok, NA: not applicable MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output [1] [+] MUST: package named according to Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name} [2] [+] MUST: meet Packaging Guidelines [+] MUST: Fedora approved license and Licensing Guidelines [+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license. [3] [+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source [4] [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English [5] and legible. [6] [+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release (from upstream URL) [+] MUST: successfully compile and build into binary rpms on a primary arch [7] [NA] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [8] [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations [9] [NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [11] [NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [12] [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [13] [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [14] [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [15] [+] MUST: consistently use macros [16] [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] [NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [18] [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [18] [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19] [+] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20] [NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [19] [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [21] [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [20] [NA] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. [22] [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [23] [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [29] Looks good to me. Package is APPROVED.
Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-Diff Short Description: A O(ND) diff algorithm in Haskell Owners: narasim Branches: f17 f16 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc17
ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc16
ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.el6
ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
ghc-Diff-0.1.3-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ghc-Diff New Branches: epel7 Owners: petersen InitialCC: haskell-sig
ghc-Diff-0.3.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-Diff-0.3.0-1.el7
ghc-Diff-0.3.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.