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=664221

--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com 2011-04-03 01:59:42 EDT --- http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-cautious-file.spec

http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-cautious-file-0.1.5-2.fc...

rpmlint -i ghc-cautious-file.spec ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ghc-cautious-file-0.1.5-2.fc14.src.rpm ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/ghc-cautious-file-*.rpm

ghc-cautious-file.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit, pos ix, pos-ix The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-cautious-file.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit, pos ix, pos-ix The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-cautious-file-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit, pos ix, pos-ix The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-cautious-file-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-cautious-file-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself.

ghc-cautious-file-prof.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit, pos ix, pos-ix The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-cautious-file-prof.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.

ghc-cautious-file-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.3/cautious-file-0.1.5/libHScautious-file-0.1.5_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, 6 warnings.

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=664221

Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |notready

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=664221

Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |petersen@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2011-11-10 04:27:07 EST --- http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/cautious-file

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=664221

--- Comment #6 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com 2012-02-11 05:40:11 EST --- SPEC file: http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-cautious-file.spec

SRPM http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-cautious-file-1.0-1.fc16...

rpmlint output: rpmlint -i *.rpm ghc-cautious-file.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-cautious-file.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-cautious-file-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

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=664221

Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard|Ready | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2012-02-25 02:32:02 EST --- Sorry for long wait - been busy with ARM and other "distractions"...

Here is the review:

+:ok, NA: not applicable

MUST Items: [] MUST: rpmlint output [1]

ghc-cautious-file.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ghc-cautious-file.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. ghc-cautious-file-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US posix -> posit 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

waived

[+] 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)

ca18207cccb0ab7c7c2649133943ccc4 cautious-file-1.0.tar.gz

[!] MUST: successfully compile and build into binary rpms on a primary arch [7]

Srpm doesn't build in mock/koji though: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3817824 due to missing BR on bytestring.

[NA] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [8] [-] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires

See preceding comment.

[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] [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static 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]

Please fix the above missing BR when importing.

Package is APPROVED.

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=664221

Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #10 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com 2012-03-01 03:56:14 EST --- Thanks for the review. I will incorporate the patch.

New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-cautious-file Short Description: Provides ways to write a file cautiously Owners: narasim Branches: f17 f16 f15 InitialCC: haskell-sig

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=664221

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED

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=664221

--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-03 13:34:57 EST --- ghc-cautious-file-1.0-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-cautious-file-1.0-2.fc17

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=664221

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-05 15:59:28 EST --- ghc-cautious-file-1.0-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

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=664221

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ghc-cautious-file-1.0-2.fc1 |ghc-cautious-file-1.0-2.fc1 |7 |6

--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2012-03-17 19:49:44 EDT --- ghc-cautious-file-1.0-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664221

Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #19 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ghc-cautious-file New Branches: epel7 Owners: petersen InitialCC: haskell-sig

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664221

--- Comment #20 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664221

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ghc-cautious-file-1.0-2.fc1 |ghc-cautious-file-1.0.2-2.e |5 |l7

--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-cautious-file-1.0.2-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.