[Bug 982163] Review Request: ghc-threads - Fork threads and wait for their result
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jul 10 10:10:13 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982163
Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org |petersen at redhat.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> ---
Looks fine to me.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
Note: Archive *.a files found in ghc-threads-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
This is allowed for Haskell libraries.
((Maybe I should add "Provides: *-static" to cabal-rpm
if that would quieten fedora-review.))
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 22 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-threads-0.5.0.2-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
ghc-threads-devel-0.5.0.2-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
ghc-threads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US threadmanager ->
thread manager, thread-manager, threadbare
ghc-threads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a
sync
ghc-threads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US forkOn -> fork On,
fork-on, fork
ghc-threads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US forkIOWithUnmask
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ghc-threads ghc-threads-devel
ghc-threads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US threadmanager ->
thread manager, thread-manager, threadbare
ghc-threads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US async -> sync, a
sync
ghc-threads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US forkOn -> fork On,
fork-on, fork
ghc-threads.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US forkIOWithUnmask
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
ghc-threads (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
ghc(base-unicode-symbols-0.2.2.4-ec1c787160bf91bc92b0b4f99c4199a9)
ghc(stm-2.4.2-b5d718b1a5f1fbcdb61a336aef0c2130)
libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSbase-unicode-symbols-0.2.2.4-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSstm-2.4.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-threads-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
ghc(threads-0.5.0.2-b15b0b9f26e32879615a4e09375f7313)
ghc-compiler
ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
ghc-devel(base-unicode-symbols-0.2.2.4-ec1c787160bf91bc92b0b4f99c4199a9)
ghc-devel(stm-2.4.2-b5d718b1a5f1fbcdb61a336aef0c2130)
ghc-threads(x86-64)
Provides
--------
ghc-threads:
ghc(threads-0.5.0.2-b15b0b9f26e32879615a4e09375f7313)
ghc-threads
ghc-threads(x86-64)
libHSthreads-0.5.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
ghc-threads-devel:
ghc-devel(threads-0.5.0.2-b15b0b9f26e32879615a4e09375f7313)
ghc-threads-devel
ghc-threads-devel(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ghc-threads:
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/threads-0.5.0.2/libHSthreads-0.5.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so
Source checksums
----------------
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/threads/0.5.0.2/threads-0.5.0.2.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
559a0750565289de60bd6b26784d7978ee85c2662c84feeb504910539eac8c91
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
559a0750565289de60bd6b26784d7978ee85c2662c84feeb504910539eac8c91
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 982163
Package is APPROVED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=0LQL5E17ei&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list