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-language-c - Haskell language-c library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530688
Summary: Review Request: ghc-language-c - Haskell language-c library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: michael.silvanus@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/ghc-language-c.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/ghc-language-c-0.3.1.1-1.fc12.sr... Description: Language C is a haskell library for the analysis and generation of C code. It features a complete, well tested parser and pretty printer for all of C99 and a large set of GNU extensions.
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 #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-10-29 04:41:58 EDT --- Looks fine to me.
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
Bryan O'Sullivan bos@serpentine.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bos@serpentine.com Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Bryan O'Sullivan bos@serpentine.com 2009-11-13 00:28:45 EDT --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.
$ rpmlint ghc-language-c-devel-0.3.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-language-c-doc-0.3.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-language-c-prof-0.3.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm ghc-language-c-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-language-c-devel ghc-language-c-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-language-c-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.3/language-c-0.3.1.1/libHSlanguage-c-0.3.1.1_p.a 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
OK. All expected.
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK.
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
OK.
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
OK.
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
OK.
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK.
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.
OK.
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK.
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK.
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.
OK.
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
OK.
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.
OK.
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.
OK.
MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
NA.
MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
NA.
MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
NA.
MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable,...
NA.
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
OK.
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
OK.
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
OK.
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section
OK.
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK.
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK.
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK.
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
OK.
MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
NA.
MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
NA.
MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).
NA.
MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1)
NA.
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
OK.
MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
OK.
MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must
NA.
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK.
MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK.
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]
OK.
This 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=530688
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |bos@serpentine.com
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 #3 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-11-23 19:59:02 EDT --- Michel will you do a CVS Request?
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
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(michael.silvanus@ | |gmail.com)
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-12-21 05:02:26 EDT --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVS_admin_requests
ping?
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 #6 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2010-01-27 19:42:11 EST --- Michel?
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@redhat.com 2010-02-14 21:04:24 EST --- Pinging again.
This package was approved in November and still no cvs request or build.
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 #8 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2010-04-08 08:17:09 EDT --- Ping again!?
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 #9 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2010-04-08 08:18:46 EDT --- If Michel doesn't want/need this package any more perhaps we should just close it for now?
Or does someone else wish to take it over?
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
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_DEV |CLOSED Resolution| |DEFERRED Alias| |ghc-language-c Flag|needinfo?(michael.silvanus@ | |gmail.com) |
--- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2010-06-03 00:14:42 EDT --- Closing this deferred since noone seems interested.
Sorry, Bryan, about the wasted effort...
If someone wants to pick it up again please reopen.
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
Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|DEFERRED | Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #11 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me 2011-09-08 12:09:35 EDT --- Somehow this slipped out of my radar, sorry. I'm assuming there needs to be a re-review, with a cabal2spec-generated template?
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 #12 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me 2011-09-08 12:56:29 EDT --- Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/ghc-language-c.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/ghc-language-c-0.4.2.fc15.src.rp...
(rebased using cabal2spec-0.24 from Fedora 16)
Koji build for Fedora 15: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3335866
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
Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |736801
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
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|bos@serpentine.com |petersen@redhat.com Flag|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
--- Comment #13 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2011-09-08 23:22:09 EDT --- Ok, taking over this restarted review at Michel's request after checking with Bryan.
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 #14 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me 2011-09-09 13:00:12 EDT --- updated srpm: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/ghc-language-c-0.4.2.fc15.src.rp...
the manually-added BuildRequires are also needed at runtime, otherwise the Language.C* modules cannot be imported. Tested with the linked pure-gen review request
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 #15 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2011-09-13 21:46:14 EDT --- (In reply to comment #14)
http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/ghc-language-c-0.4.2.fc15.src.rp...
I guess you mean:
http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/ghc-language-c-0.4.2-2.fc15.src.... :)
the manually-added BuildRequires are also needed at runtime, otherwise the Language.C* modules cannot be imported. Tested with the linked pure-gen review request
I think this is a bug in current f15 and f14 ghc-rpm-macros as I just discovered this week, when using cabal2spec-0.24.
I have backported a fix from F16 so that ghc-dep.sh gets activated also for the newer templates in cabal2spec-0.24:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-rpm-macros-0.13.10-1.fc15 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-rpm-macros-0.13.10-1.fc14
and those builds are in Koji override until the end of next week to avoid this issue. Perhaps you could test that it solves your problem?
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 #16 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2011-09-13 21:56:03 EDT --- Apart from the last change the package looks fine to me and rpmlint is clean.
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 #17 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me 2011-09-26 11:38:44 EDT --- Didn't manage to catch it in Koji, sorry. It worked fine on a local build -- rpm -qp --requires on the built package now show the correct dependencies, so I've updated the package:
http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/funpl/ghc-language-c-0.4.2-3.fc15.src....
and voted up the update on Bodhi
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
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |Ready
--- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2011-09-27 06:31:26 EDT --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3381031
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
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #19 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2011-09-28 03:24:55 EDT --- Here is the review:
+:ok, NA: not applicable
MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output
rpmlint clean
[+] 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
7b0ba1e90b53f7ea9883f9a6cf07d3d4 language-c-0.4.2.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 [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. [+] 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. [+] 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: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
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=530688
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard|Ready |
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
Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #20 from Michel Alexandre Salim michel+fdr@sylvestre.me 2011-10-04 05:35:17 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-language-c Short Description: Haskell library for C code analysis and generation Owners: salimma Branches: f15 f16 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=530688
--- Comment #21 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-10-04 08:17:43 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
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
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=530688
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-04 12:16:52 EDT --- ghc-language-c-0.4.2-3.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-language-c-0.4.2-3.fc15
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 #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-04 12:17:03 EDT --- ghc-language-c-0.4.2-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-language-c-0.4.2-3.fc16
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
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-04 16:47:01 EDT --- ghc-language-c-0.4.2-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 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=530688
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |ghc-language-c-0.4.2-3.fc15 Resolution| |ERRATA Last Closed|2010-06-03 00:14:42 |2011-10-13 19:53:32
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-13 19:53:32 EDT --- ghc-language-c-0.4.2-3.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable 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=530688
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ghc-language-c-0.4.2-3.fc15 |ghc-language-c-0.4.2-3.fc16
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-10-15 20:55:38 EDT --- ghc-language-c-0.4.2-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org