[Bug 806536] Review Request: ghc-resourcet - Deterministic allocation and freeing of scarce resources
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=806536
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2012-04-07 08:00:40 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-resourcet-0.3.1-1.fc15.src.rpm
ghc-resourcet-0.3.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ghc-resourcet-devel-0.3.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-resourcet.spec
ghc-resourcet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad -> nomad,
gonad, Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-resourcet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monads -> nomads,
gonads
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-resourcet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad -> nomad,
gonad, Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-resourcet.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monads -> nomads,
gonads
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-resourcet-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad ->
nomad, gonad, Mona
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-resourcet-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monads ->
nomads, gonads
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]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.
LICENSE file is included
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]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.
md5sum resourcet-0.3.1.tar.gz
0b12243c671870b85e0b3501c4129ea1 resourcet-0.3.1.tar.gz
md5sum ghc-resourcet-0.3.1-1.fc16.src/resourcet-0.3.1.tar.gz
0b12243c671870b85e0b3501c4129ea1
ghc-resourcet-0.3.1-1.fc16.src/resourcet-0.3.1.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]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.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-resourcet-0.3.1-1.fc15.x86_64
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(resourcet-0.3.1) = cebabc54eb365f078e6c86e2c44fa0c6 is needed by
(installed) ghc-resourcet-devel-0.3.1-1.fc15.x86_64
ghc-resourcet = 0.3.1-1.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-resourcet-devel-0.3.1-1.fc15.x86_64
[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
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]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.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the packages. Loaded Control.Monad.Trans.Resource into ghci
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
APPROVED.
--
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.
12 years, 1 month
[Bug 787972] Review Request: ghc-dotgen - Simple interface to build .dot graph files
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=787972
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2012-04-07 07:01:51 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-dotgen-0.4.1-1.fc15.src.rpm
ghc-dotgen-devel-0.4.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ghc-dotgen-0.4.1-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
../ghc-dotgen.spec
ghc-dotgen.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US graphviz -> graph viz,
graph-viz, graphic
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-dotgen-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US graphviz ->
graph viz, graph-viz, graphic
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-dotgen.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US graphviz -> graph
viz, graph-viz, graphic
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]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.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]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.
md5sum ghc-dotgen-0.4.1-1.fc15.src/dotgen-0.4.1.tar.gz
bb99f1ddc40476491ac69aacc8105ec5
ghc-dotgen-0.4.1-1.fc15.src/dotgen-0.4.1.tar.gz
md5sum dotgen-0.4.1.tar.gz
bb99f1ddc40476491ac69aacc8105ec5 dotgen-0.4.1.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64
[+]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.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-dotgen-0.4.1
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(dotgen-0.4.1) = f8c667912b1f96e3b2603b1f685f8894 is needed by (installed)
ghc-dotgen-devel-0.4.1-1.fc15.x86_64
ghc-dotgen = 0.4.1-1.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-dotgen-devel-0.4.1-1.fc15.x86_64
[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
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]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.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the packages. Loaded Text.Dot into ghci
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
APPROVED.
--
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.
12 years, 1 month
[Bug 787977] Review Request: ghc-data-reify - converts recursive data structures into graphs
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=787977
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2012-04-06 03:18:59 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-data-reify-0.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ghc-data-reify-0.6-1.fc15.src.rpm ghc-data-reify-devel-0.6-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
../ghc-data-reify.spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
BSD 3 clause.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]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.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]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.
md5sum data-reify-0.6.tar.gz
25f0c927f53bc068da8a261d78b771fd data-reify-0.6.tar.gz
d5sum ghc-data-reify-0.6-1.fc15.src/data-reify-0.6.tar.gz
25f0c927f53bc068da8a261d78b771fd
ghc-data-reify-0.6-1.fc15.src/data-reify-0.6.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64
[+]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.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Tested with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Tested with rpmquery --whatprovides.
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Tested with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-data-reify
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(data-reify-0.6) = 21f1f824f31e07d5e843d78f7732664c is needed by
(installed) ghc-data-reify-devel-0.6-1.fc15.x86_64
ghc-data-reify = 0.6-1.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-data-reify-devel-0.6-1.fc15.x86_64
[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
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
Checked with rpmquery --list and rpmquery --whatprovides.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]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.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the packages. Loaded Data.Reify.Graph into ghci.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
APPROVED.
--
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.
12 years, 1 month