Created attachment 460968 [details]
haddock.spec-1.patch

Patch to clean up a bit:

- fix base package group
- use upstream main webpage
- don't need filelist file for base package

Thanks, I will integrate the patch and submit the spec file and srpm URLs.

SPEC file link : 
https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/haddock.spec?attredirects=0&d=1

SRPM link
https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/haddock-2.7.2-2.fc14.src.rpm?attredirects=0&d=1

rpmlint output:
ghc-haddock.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-haddock-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-haddock-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.

ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/haddock-2.7.2/libHShaddock-2.7.2_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.

haddock.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

haddock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary haddock-2.7.2
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

haddock.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.

5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings.

(Is it possible you could use fedorapeople instead to host your submissions?)

Sorry for the delay..

SPEC file URL:
http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/haddock.spec

SRPM URL
http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/haddock-2.7.2-2.fc14.src.rpm

Likewise, sorry. :)


Here is the review:

 +:ok, NA: not applicable, !: needs attention

MUST Items:
[+] MUST: rpmlint output

haddock.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ghc-haddock.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
ghc-haddock.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
ghc-haddock-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-haddock-devel
ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-haddock-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/haddock-2.7.2/libHShaddock-2.7.2_p.a
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
haddock.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum
haddock.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary haddock-2.7.2
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

These are ok.

[+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name}
[+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines.
[!] MUST: Licensing Guidelines

Need license in ghc-haddock too.

Actually this is kind of a ghc-rpm-macros bug/rfe,
so I will see if I can improve it.

[+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license.

BSD

[+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible.
[+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release

7b4a8d47ef01d06dc778e0237bafbf1b  haddock-2.7.2.tar.gz

[+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2725798 (f14 build since ghc is broken in rawhide right now)

[+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations
[NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[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.
[NA] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec.
[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: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.

Once we have a copy of the license on the shared lib package
I am happy to approve this review.

Created attachment 473829 [details]
haddock.spec-2.patch

- update to cabal2spec-0.22.4

(In reply to comment #6)
> [!] MUST: Licensing Guidelines
> 
> Need license in ghc-haddock too.
> 
> Actually this is kind of a ghc-rpm-macros bug/rfe,
> so I will see if I can improve it.

Sorry this fine in the f14 build and is purely
a f15 rawhide regression in ghc-rpm-macros.

I would suggest building first for f14 (and f13) until
it is clearer how we will do leksah for ghc-7.0.1.

Package is APPROVED.

Please apply the above patch, before building.

Thanks for the review.

Yes, I will apply the patch.

(I note for the record that haddock-2.9(.1) is out, which is compatible with ghc-7.0.1 haddock.  One could hope that leksah-0.9 will work with it.)

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: haddock
Owners: narasim
New Branches: F13 F14
InitialCC: haskell-sig

Requesting devel branch.

A correct to comment 12

"Requesting to unretire devel branch."

Git done (by process-git-requests).

I also unretired the devel branch; you should log into pkgdb and claim it.

https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4363

The fedorahosted ticket has been closed. The next step would be to build haddock for devel,f14 and f13.

F15 build
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=217316

Let's include the review bug next time so it gets closed by bodhi.