Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547867
Summary: %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly
Product: Fedora
Version: 11
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: high
Component: ghc-rpm-macros
AssignedTo: loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com
ReportedBy: jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com,
fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
I want to tryout ghc-6.12.1 on my system and have installed
ghc-rpm-macros-0.3.0-1 on my system.
Because I have trouble to compile my packages, I have try out the following
command:
$ rpm -q --eval '%{ghc_version}'
and got the following output:
error: Recursion depth(17) greater than max(16)
15< (empty)
14< (empty)
13< (empty)
12< (empty)
11< (empty)
10< (empty)
9< (empty)
8< (empty)
7< (empty)
6< (empty)
5< (empty)
4< (empty)
3< (empty)
2< (empty)
1< (empty)
0< (empty)
If I type
$ ghc --numeric-version
I will get
6.12.1
which I expected for
$ rpm -q --eval '%{ghc_version}'
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
--
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.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517197
Summary: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT
library
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: bos(a)serpentine.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com,
fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Depends on: 517155
Classification: Fedora
Bryan O'Sullivan <bos(a)serpentine.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-review?
Spec: http://www.serpentine.com/bos/files/ghc-GLUT.spec
SRPM: http://www.serpentine.com/bos/files/ghc-GLUT-2.1.1.2-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description:
This package provides the Haskell GLUT library for ghc.
This is a set of bindings to the C freeglut library.
--
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.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: ghc-utf8-string - Support reading and writing UTF8 Strings
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503250
Summary: Review Request: ghc-utf8-string - Support reading and
writing UTF8 Strings
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Status Whiteboard: NotReady
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: Package Review
AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
ReportedBy: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com,
fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
Clone Of: 426750
Spec URL: http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-hinotify.spec
SRPM URL: http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-utf8-string-0.3.4-1.fc11.src.rpm
Description: This library provides a wrapper to the Linux Kernel's inotify
feature,allowing applications to subscribe to notifications when a file is
accessed or modified.
--
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.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: ~/.cabal/bin should be appended to PATH if available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509699
Summary: ~/.cabal/bin should be appended to PATH if available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: cabal-install
AssignedTo: petersen(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: petersen(a)redhat.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
Target Release: ---
Description of problem:
After installing cabal programs, it is annoying that they are not in PATH
and one has to type the fully-qualified or relative path
explicitly: eg ~/.cabal/bin/progname
I think we can append ~/.cabal/bin to user's PATH if it exists.
--
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.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: update to darcs-2.3.0 stable cabal release
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522953
Summary: update to darcs-2.3.0 stable cabal release
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: darcs
AssignedTo: petersen(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: petersen(a)redhat.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, jeremy(a)hinegardner.org,
fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
Target Release: ---
Description of problem:
darcs should be updated to 2.3.0 stable.
Unfortunately this requires hashed-storage and
haskeline to be added to fedora.
--
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.
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=558058
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-28 02:44:24 EST ---
BAD = Please fix.
N/A = Doesn't apply to this package.
YES = Fine.
??? = I have some question(s).
- [ YES ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should
be posted in the review.
ghc-dataenc.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
ghc-dataenc.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
ghc-dataenc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Harrell,
Rathskeller, Hastily
ghc-dataenc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uuencode -> encoder,
encode, Unicode
ghc-dataenc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xxencode -> xx encode,
xx-encode, encoder
ghc-dataenc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yEncoding -> y
Encoding, encoding, yen coding
ghc-dataenc.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
ghc-dataenc.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Spelling warnings are ignorable; the other warnings are also ignorable, I
think we decided.
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on
Package Naming Guidelines.
- [ ??? ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
I'm curious, cabal2spec-diff wants it to be binlib, not lib. Any idea?
Otherwise, looks good.
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved
license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match
the actual license.
- [ YES ] 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.
- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the
reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to
perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the
Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/).
- [ YES ] 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this
package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
sha512sum =
e64138df9d2815af5ad7871ffb3d2b7199183b6991e40929d620b8d8de06f2e22a4104ac317bf485ee98018c25afef7125314fc037ec94de9ba0973f6f190198
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into
binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
Tested on x86_64.
- [ N/A ] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs
to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should
then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process,
so they should put this description in the comment until the package is
approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation
with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more)
of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
- [ YES ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
Apply common sense.
- [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done
by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
- [ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
- [ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager
must state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this,
use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
- [ YES ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If
it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a
package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for
examples.
- [ YES ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the
%files listing.
- [ YES ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables
should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files
section must include a %defattr(...) line.
- [ YES ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- [ YES ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described
in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
(The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity.)
- [ YES ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not
affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc,
the program must run properly if it is not present.
- [ YES ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- [ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must
'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
- [ N/A ] 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.
- [ YES ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must
require the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- [ N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
these should be removed in the spec.
- [ N/A ] 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. This is described in detail
in the desktop files section of the Packaging Guidelines. If you feel
that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you
must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
- [ YES ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned
by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be
installed should own the files or directories that other packages may
rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever
share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the
filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to
own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present
that at package review time.
- [ YES ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
- [ N/A ] 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.
- [ N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec
file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages,
if available.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in
mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms
on all supported architectures.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
- [ N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed
in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a
devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
- [ N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc,
/bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which
provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies
in the Guidelines for further information.
I think it's good, though I'm curious why cabal2spec thinks it should be
binlib, not just lib. Anyways, if that's cabal2spec being braindead, go ahead.
If it's a mistake, you can fix it before import.
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.
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=558058
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |konrad(a)tylerc.org
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |konrad(a)tylerc.org
Flag| |fedora-review?
--
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.
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=558057
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-25 07:44:31 EST ---
ghc-binary-0.5.0.2-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.
If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
--
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.
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=558057
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-22 21:06:39 EST ---
Imported and built to devel.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2007182
Thanks again
--
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.
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=479800
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Resolution| |RAWHIDE
--- Comment #52 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-19 21:36:07 EST ---
Built in rawhide (or devel/, anyways):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2000898
Closing.
--
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.
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=479800
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #51 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2010-02-19 14:45:08 EST ---
CVS done.
--
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.
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=479800
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #50 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-19 14:39:39 EST ---
Oops, ok. I always forget. Just nuking it for now, as changes to this bug
already get copied to the haskell list.
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: hlint
Short Description: Haskell Source code suggestions
Owners: konradm
Branches: F-13 F-12
InitialCC:
--
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.
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=558057
--- Comment #4 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2010-02-19 14:07:53 EST ---
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
--
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.
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=479800
--- Comment #49 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2010-02-19 13:36:00 EST ---
InitialCC cannot be an email address. Could you submit a corrected request?
--
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.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: ghc is missing the ghc haskell package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566636
Summary: ghc is missing the ghc haskell package
Product: Fedora
Version: 13
Platform: i686
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: ghc
AssignedTo: bos(a)serpentine.com
ReportedBy: greenrd(a)greenrd.org
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, bos(a)serpentine.com,
loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com,
fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
The ghc Fedora package doesn't contain the ghc Haskell package, which contains
the GHC API, and therefore packages which rely on it can't be built.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
ghc-6.12.1-5.fc13.i686
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
ghc-pkg list ghc
Actual results:
/usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/package.conf.d
Expected results:
/usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/package.conf.d
ghc-6.12.1
Additional info:
This problem also seems to exist in the Windows package of GHC 6.12.1:
http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell-cafe@haskell.org/msg69311.html
--
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.
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=555653
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-18 17:41:12 EST ---
ghc-haskeline-0.6.2.1-2.1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
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.
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=479800
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #48 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-17 10:53:32 EST ---
Ok, I'll do this before import. Thanks!
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: hlint
Short Description: Haskell Source code suggestions
Owners: konradm
Branches: F-13 F-12
InitialCC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
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.
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=479800
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #47 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-17 05:23:33 EST ---
Thanks Conrad.
Here is my review, before upstream releases again. ;) :)
Here is the review:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing, NA: not applicable
MUST Items:
[=] MUST: rpmlint output
hlint.src: W: macro-in-%description %ghc_binlib_package
I don't like this and only noticed this week with
haskeline in koji but it is a cabal2spec templates
error. I guess we need %{?ghc_binlib_package}.
I suggest making that change before importing.
hlint.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
hlint.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
These are ok: though I maybe revert cabal2spec until rpmlint
is silenced for them.
ghc-hlint.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20-ghc6.12.1.so
ghc-hlint.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20-ghc6.12.1.so
ghc-hlint-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hlint-devel
ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20_p.a
hlint.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/hlint
These are normal for a haskell package.
[+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name}
[+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines
[+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license.
[+] 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
6c1be9a1d0835d5aa5028ac1de5dcee3 hlint-1.6.20.tar.gz
[+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch
[+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] 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. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] 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.
[+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] 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.
Ok I take you dropped "LicenseClarification" since the .cabal file
now states GPLv2.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
I suggest quoting ghc_binlib_package with ? as above.
Package is APPROVED for fedora.
--
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.
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=558057
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-17 04:57:29 EST ---
Thanks, Konrad :)
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: ghc-binary
Short Description: Haskell binary serialisation
Owners: petersen
Branches: F-13
InitialCC: haskell-sig
--
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.
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=555653
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-17 01:21:42 EST ---
in the end I built -2.1, shrug.
--
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.
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=558057
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-16 23:36:48 EST ---
BAD = Please fix.
N/A = Doesn't apply to this package.
YES = Fine.
??? = I have some question(s).
- [ YES ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should
be posted in the review.
(I've excluded the incorrect spelling warnings)
ghc-binary.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %ghc_lib_package
ghc-binary.src: E: description-line-too-long C been observed, so this library
should be suitable for high performance scenarios.
ghc-binary.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
ghc-binary.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
ghc-binary.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
ghc-binary.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on
Package Naming Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
cabal2spec-diff looks good.
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved
license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match
the actual license.
- [ YES ] 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.
- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the
reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to
perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the
Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/).
- [ YES ] 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this
package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
sha512sum =
9f33f23d361a6a64c93097c99c794e2324fe5069fb0eb020cb5b3b1c2ad007ed0bdae660aeb58ec58625d9ddd885110d7642f092f25d82863d7dc14fb5cf04b3
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into
binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
- [ N/A ] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs
to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should
then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process,
so they should put this description in the comment until the package is
approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation
with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more)
of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
- [ YES ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
Apply common sense.
- [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done
by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
- [ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
- [ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager
must state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this,
use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
- [ YES ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If
it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a
package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for
examples.
- [ YES ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the
%files listing.
- [ YES ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables
should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files
section must include a %defattr(...) line.
- [ YES ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- [ YES ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described
in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
(The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity.)
- [ YES ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not
affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc,
the program must run properly if it is not present.
- [ YES ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- [ YES ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must
'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
- [ N/A ] 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.
- [ YES ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must
require the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- [ YES ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
these should be removed in the spec.
- [ N/A ] 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. This is described in detail
in the desktop files section of the Packaging Guidelines. If you feel
that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you
must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
- [ YES ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned
by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be
installed should own the files or directories that other packages may
rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever
share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the
filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to
own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present
that at package review time.
- [ N/A ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For
%install for details.
- [ YES ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
- [ N/A ] 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.
- [ N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec
file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages,
if available.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in
mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms
on all supported architectures.
Tested on x86_64.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
- [ N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed
in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a
devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
- [ N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc,
/bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which
provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies
in the Guidelines for further information.
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.
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=558057
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |konrad(a)tylerc.org
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |konrad(a)tylerc.org
Flag| |fedora-review?
--
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.
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=555653
--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-16 02:54:44 EST ---
imported but builds failing with
pg.DatabaseError: error 'ERROR: duplicate key value violates unique constraint
"rpminfo_unique_nvra"
--
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.
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=555653
--- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> 2010-02-15 22:46:12 EST ---
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
--
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.
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=555653
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-15 20:19:37 EST ---
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: ghc-haskeline
Short Description: Haskell command-line interface for user input
Owners: petersen
Branches: devel
InitialCC: haskell-sig
--
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.
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=479800
--- Comment #45 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-15 19:02:03 EST ---
I can confirm that with the hscolour changes I suggested
(http://pastie.caboo.se/825293) hlint builds and runs correctly.
--
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.
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=479800
--- Comment #44 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-15 05:01:53 EST ---
Ah, I guess we can remove LicenseClarification now -- I think we can do that
next time we bump or before importing, though, it's not a huge deal.
--
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.
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=479800
--- Comment #43 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-15 05:00:27 EST ---
Ok, I've bumped cpphs, ghc-haskell-src-exts, and ghc-uniplate in rawhide. I
have a hscolour bump ready to go, but I don't have ACL permissions.
--
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.
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=555653
--- Comment #5 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-15 02:33:58 EST ---
Ok, everything looks good -- 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.
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=555653
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-15 02:23:07 EST ---
Thanks for reviewing! :)
> ghc-haskeline.src: W: strange-permission haskeline-0.6.2.1.tar.gz 0600
Ugh again (silly chromium) - yup will fix
> ghc-haskeline.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
> ghc-haskeline.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
I believe these are now optional though rpmlint still complains.
> - [ BAD ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run
> rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For
> %install for details.
See the note at
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PreppingBuildRootForIns…
So should be ok. :)
--
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.
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=555653
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-15 01:56:01 EST ---
BAD = Please fix.
N/A = Doesn't apply to this package.
YES = Fine.
??? = I have some question(s).
- [ ??? ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should
be posted in the review.
ghc-haskeline.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Harrell,
Rathskeller, Hastily
ghc-haskeline.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readline ->
breadline, deadline, headline
ghc-haskeline.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Haskell -> Harrell,
Rathskeller, Hastily
ghc-haskeline.src: W: strange-permission haskeline-0.6.2.1.tar.gz 0600
ghc-haskeline.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
ghc-haskeline.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
ghc-haskeline.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
ghc-haskeline.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
The spelling errors can be safely ignored. I think the permission thing ought
to be fixed before import, but it's not a blocker. The buildroot cleaning
is still needed with rpmbuild in rawhide, unless I'm mistaken. The
buildroot-tag may not be needed anymore (at least in development RPM), but
I'm not sure about this for F-12 and rawhide versions of RPM. Please
verify that F-12 and rawhide don't need a buildroot tag.
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on
Package Naming Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
cabal2spec-diff looks reasonable.
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved
license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match
the actual license.
- [ YES ] 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.
- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the
reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to
perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the
Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/).
- [ YES ] 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. If no upstream URL can be specified for this
package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
f03a65b41c853e572506d8875f27a5b86ab002154ab50f020700fe9dfa64a3ab8fe72b5122a567da79fd6121e65ff47ea0d0b5754656505c3c4bf1c894455a80
haskeline-0.6.2.1.tar.gz
f03a65b41c853e572506d8875f27a5b86ab002154ab50f020700fe9dfa64a3ab8fe72b5122a567da79fd6121e65ff47ea0d0b5754656505c3c4bf1c894455a80
haskeline-0.6.2.1.tar.gz.orig
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into
binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
Tested on x86_64, rawhide.
- [ YES ] 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. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs
to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should
then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process,
so they should put this description in the comment until the package is
approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation
with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more)
of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc,
FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64
- [ YES ] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires,
except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging
Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional.
Apply common sense.
- [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done
by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.
- [ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
- [ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager
must state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this,
use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
- [ YES ] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If
it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a
package which does create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for
examples.
- [ YES ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the
%files listing.
- [ YES ] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables
should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files
section must include a %defattr(...) line.
- [ YES ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
- [ YES ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described
in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines.
- [ YES ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging
Guidelines.
- [ N/A ] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage.
(The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but
is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity.)
- [ YES ] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not
affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc,
the program must run properly if it is not present.
- [ YES ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
- [ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
- [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must
'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
- [ N/A ] 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.
- [ YES ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must
require the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
- [ YES ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
these should be removed in the spec.
- [ N/A ] 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. This is described in detail
in the desktop files section of the Packaging Guidelines. If you feel
that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you
must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
- [ YES ] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned
by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be
installed should own the files or directories that other packages may
rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever
share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the
filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to
own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present
that at package review time.
- [ BAD ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For
%install for details.
Rpmlint warns about this, too.
- [ YES ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
- [ N/A ] 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.
- [ N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec
file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages,
if available.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in
mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms
on all supported architectures.
Only tested on x86_64.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Seems to load ok in GHCi; didn't do any more extensive testing.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
- [ YES ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
- [ N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed
in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a
devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
- [ N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc,
/bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which
provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies
in the Guidelines for further information.
My only concerns are those raised by rpmlint; otherwise, looks good.
--
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.
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=555653
Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |konrad(a)tylerc.org
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |konrad(a)tylerc.org
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-15 00:48:58 EST ---
Taking this review...
--
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.
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=479800
--- Comment #41 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-14 21:42:36 EST ---
I saw newer releases from Neil flow past.
--
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.
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=558058
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Whiteboard| |ready
--
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.
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=558057
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Whiteboard| |ready
--
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.
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=555653
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Whiteboard| |ready
--
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.
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=546376
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Whiteboard|NotReady |notready
--
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.
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=460974
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
--
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.
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=546376
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Whiteboard| |NotReady
--
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.
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=530688
--- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-14 21:04:24 EST ---
Pinging again.
This package was approved in November and still no cvs request or build.
--
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.
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=537979
--- Comment #21 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-02 19:10:08 EST ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
>
> > Thanks for the info, but I don't see common_summary or common_description used
> > there.
>
> Which version of ghc-rpm-macros are you looking at?
ghc-rpm-macros-0.2.5-1.fc12.noarch
> ghc-rpm-macros BR is versioned:
Strange, I wonder why I could install/mock it then. Might have been the wrong
package then.
> I hope that might satisfy your curiosity. :)
Indeed, it does. Everything looks fine in CVS now, so I let this review rest.
--
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.
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=537979
--- Comment #20 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-02 04:55:28 EST ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Thanks for the info, but I don't see common_summary or common_description used
> there.
Which version of ghc-rpm-macros are you looking at?
> Other warnings/error are false positives, but still rpmlint is part of a
> review and the rpmlint output should be posted.
Agreed
> > The package is for rawhide and requires ghc-6.12.1
> > it will [not] build in f12 without latest ghc and ghc-rpm-macros.
> Then it should have proper versioned BuildRequires. The version numbers may
> only be omitted, if all supported Fedora releases satisfy the versions.
ghc-rpm-macros BR is versioned: later I may want to backport the package
to F12 with updated macros there - then a ghc version would be unnecesary.
ie the latest macros assume ghc-6.12.1 not the package itself per se.
I suppose ghc-rpm-macros could have a requires on ghc but I was trying
to avoid that I think.
> I just wanted to test if the package builds in mock, and currently 0.3.9 does
> not: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1955760
You're right, it seems I made a mistake and didn't upload the actual package
that scratch-built in koji... :(
I uploaded
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-hashed-storage/final/ghc-hashed-storag…
which I believe was the correct package and also what I imported to cvs.
I hope that might satisfy your curiosity. :)
Honesty I am very busy at work right and don't really have time
for a review inquisition but if you feel great malpractice and
incompetence took place here you can reopen.
I think we got absorbed in the license question and then Lozenzo
forgot to confirm that that package builds, but it was fixed anyway
before importing so not a big deal IMHO.
--
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.
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=537979
--- Comment #19 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-01 04:12:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > I'm not familiar with haskell, but looking at the spec I wonder what's the use
> > of using globals for name, summary and description and depends?
>
> Because they are used by ghc-rpm-macros.
Thanks for the info, but I don't see common_summary or common_description used
there.
> > $ rpmlint ~/Desktop/ghc-hashed-storage-0.3.9-2.fc12.src.rpm
> > ghc-hashed-storage.src: W: strange-permission hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz 0600
>
> Was fixed in cvs import.
Right. Other warnings/error are false positives, but still rpmlint is part of a
review and the rpmlint output should be posted. If this doesn't happen, I don't
consider this a proper review.
> The package is for rawhide and requires ghc-6.12.1
> it will build in f12 without latest ghc and ghc-rpm-macros.
Then it should have proper versioned BuildRequires. The version numbers may
only be omitted, if all supported Fedora releases satisfy the versions.
> 0.3.9 package is in rawhide...
>
> What do you need this package for? cabal-install may be your friend:
> "cabal install hashed-storage".
I just wanted to test if the package builds in mock, and currently 0.3.9 does
not: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1955760
--
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.
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=537979
--- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-01 01:43:04 EST ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I'm not familiar with haskell, but looking at the spec I wonder what's the use
> of using globals for name, summary and description and depends?
Because they are used by ghc-rpm-macros.
> $ rpmlint ~/Desktop/ghc-hashed-storage-0.3.9-2.fc12.src.rpm
> ghc-hashed-storage.src: W: strange-permission hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz 0600
Was fixed in cvs import.
> ghc-hashed-storage.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
> ghc-hashed-storage.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
rpmlint needs updating... they are now superfluous.
> $ rpmlint ghc-hashed-storage*0.3.9-2.fc13.i686.rpm
> ghc-hashed-storage.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
> /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/hashed-storage-0.3.9/libHShashed-storage-0.3.9-ghc6.12.1.so
> ghc-hashed-storage.i686: W: executable-stack
> /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/hashed-storage-0.3.9/libHShashed-storage-0.3.9-ghc6.12.1.so
This are normal fpr ghc libs.
> ghc-hashed-storage-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
ghc-hashed-storage-doc
> ghc-hashed-storage-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-hashed-storage-devel
Yes it is needed.
> ghc-hashed-storage-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/hashed-storage-0.3.9/libHShashed-storage-0.3.9_p.a
normal
> F-12:
> + %cabal_configure --ghc -p
> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.sYV5fI: line 29: fg: no job control
The package is for rawhide and requires ghc-6.12.1
it will build in f12 without latest ghc and ghc-rpm-macros.
(No not all fedora packages are backported to earlier releases...)
> F-13:
0.3.9 package is in rawhide...
What do you need this package for? cabal-install may be your friend:
"cabal install hashed-storage".
--
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.