[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 630282] Review Request: ghc-MonadCatchIO-mtl - Monad-transformer for Control.Exception
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=630282
Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> 2011-01-18 10:51:04 EST ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> #001 Please use "License: Public Domain".
Ah. Oops. Needs an email to the maint to ensure it's valid for Fedora anyways.
> #002 Why do you have text enclosed in '@' in the Description? Please remove it.
Used in cabal description and Haddock uses it. Missed it here
> #003 Please change the permission on the .spec file and .tar.gz file to 0664.
This is my umask. Won't be a problem in Fedora's git or the lookaside cache.
I'll get around to this tonight hopefully.
--
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.
13 years, 5 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 651613] Review Request: haddock - Haskell documentation tool
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=651613
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2011-01-17 07:35:38 EST ---
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.
--
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.
13 years, 5 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 630261] Review Request: ghc-bytestring-nums - Parse numeric literals from ByteStrings
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=630261
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2011-01-16 02:51:56 EST ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ../ghc-bytestring-nums.spec *.rpm
ghc-bytestring-nums.src: W: strange-permission bytestring-nums-0.3.2.tar.gz
0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
ghc-bytestring-nums.src: W: strange-permission ghc-bytestring-nums.spec 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
ghc-bytestring-nums-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-bytestring-nums-devel
Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package
itself.
ghc-bytestring-nums-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.
ghc-bytestring-nums-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/bytestring-nums-0.3.2/libHSbytestring-nums-0.3.2_p.a
A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If
you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a
development package.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 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
License - OK, BSD 3 clause license.
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.
Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK. Upgrade to cabal2spec-0.22.4
%clean is ignored - present anyway. OK. Upgrade to cabal2spec-0.22.4
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, present in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
BSD 3 clause variant
[+]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.
Yes LICENSE file is included in the base package.
[+]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-bytestring-nums-0.3.2-1.fc14.src/bytestring-nums-0.3.2.tar.gz
f54377b9915a9074d8dc1a07f4f17298
ghc-bytestring-nums-0.3.2-1.fc14.src/bytestring-nums-0.3.2.tar.gz
md5sum ~/Downloads/bytestring-nums-0.3.2.tar.gz
f54377b9915a9074d8dc1a07f4f17298 ~/Downloads/bytestring-nums-0.3.2.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.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]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 rpqmquery --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: 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: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-bytestring-nums
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc-bytestring-nums = 0.3.2-1.fc14 is needed by (installed)
ghc-bytestring-nums-devel-0.3.2-1.fc14.x86_64
rpm -e ghc-bytestring-nums-devel
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc-bytestring-nums-devel = 0.3.2-1.fc14 is needed by (installed)
ghc-bytestring-nums-prof-0.3.2-1.fc14.x86_64
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[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 whatprovids
[+]MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[+]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. Install went fine. Imported
Data.ByteString.Nums.Careless.Int into ghci. Import works fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is OK. Please upgrade to cabal2spec 0.22.4
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.
13 years, 5 months