[Bug 885350] Review Request: ghc-date-cache - Date cacher
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885350
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-date-cache-devel-0.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
ghc-date-cache-0.3.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ghc-date-cache-0.3.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
../ghc-date-cache.spec
ghc-date-cache-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cacher -> cachet,
cache, catcher
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-date-cache-devel.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
The latest changelog entry doesn't contain a version. Please insert the
version that is coherent with the version of the package and rebuild it.
ghc-date-cache.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cacher -> cachet,
cache, catcher
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-date-cache.x86_64: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
The latest changelog entry doesn't contain a version. Please insert the
version that is coherent with the version of the package and rebuild it.
ghc-date-cache.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cacher -> cachet, cache,
catcher
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-date-cache.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog
The latest changelog entry doesn't contain a version. Please insert the
version that is coherent with the version of the package and rebuild it.
ghc-date-cache.src: W: strange-permission date-cache-0.3.0.tar.gz 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
ghc-date-cache.src: W: strange-permission ghc-date-cache.spec 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Changelog is incorrect. Please correct it before importing the package.
[+]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
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.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
BSD license.
[+]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.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]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 sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
sha256sum ghc-date-cache-0.3.0-1.fc19.src/date-cache-0.3.0.tar.gz
abce44f11dd9da4abaca9e33da2c74bd32b42fea027d171c03b6c10cda62303f
ghc-date-cache-0.3.0-1.fc19.src/date-cache-0.3.0.tar.gz
sha256sum date-cache-0.3.0.tar.gz
abce44f11dd9da4abaca9e33da2c74bd32b42fea027d171c03b6c10cda62303f
date-cache-0.3.0.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.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --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. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+]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: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
[+]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.
[-]SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Installed the packages. Loaded System.Date.Cache into ghci. Loads fine
cabal-rpm-diff is OK.
Please correct changelog before importing the package.
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=cUeBI1tP7m&a=cc_unsubscribe
11 years, 5 months
[Bug 870327] New: cannot find -lHSrts_thr
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=870327
Bug ID: 870327
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
Severity: unspecified
Clone Of: 862543
Version: 18
Depends On: 862543
Priority: unspecified
CC: bos(a)serpentine.com, dan(a)danny.cz,
haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com, petersen(a)redhat.com
Assignee: lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com
Summary: cannot find -lHSrts_thr
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Unspecified
Reporter: petersen(a)redhat.com
Type: Bug
Documentation: ---
Hardware: s390x
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: leksah-server
Product: Fedora
[BTW this also affects ppc and f17 arm]
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #862543 +++
Some packages (eg. lehsak-server) fail to build with "/usr/bin/ld: cannot find
-lHSrts_thr" error message thrown.
Full logs for leksah-server-0.12.1.2-5.fc18 are at
http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=826278
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
ghc-compiler.s390 0:7.4.1-6.1.fc18
--- Additional comment from dan(a)danny.cz on 2012-10-03 21:29:28 JST ---
pandoc is also affected
http://s390.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=826471
--- Additional comment from petersen(a)redhat.com on 2012-10-26 16:44:58 JST ---
I am not sure if ghc's threaded runtime is supported on tier 2 archs.
Anyway at least for pandoc rts_thr is not really needed
(it is dropped now in upstream git). So fixing that first.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
11 years, 5 months
[Bug 662273] Review Request: ghc-data-accessor - Utilities for accessing and manipulating fields of records
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662273
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-data-accessor-0.2.2.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
ghc-data-accessor-devel-0.2.2.3-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
ghc-data-accessor-0.2.2.3-1.fc17.src.rpm ../ghc-data-accessor.spec
ghc-data-accessor.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US accessors ->
accessory, accessorizes, accessorize
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-accessor-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
accessors -> accessory, accessorizes, accessorize
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-accessor.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US accessors ->
accessory, accessorizes, accessorize
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-data-accessor.src: W: strange-permission ghc-data-accessor.spec 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
ghc-data-accessor.src: W: strange-permission data-accessor-0.2.2.3.tar.gz 0640L
A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions.
Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 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
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.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
BSD license
[+]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.
[+]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 sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
sha256sum ghc-data-accessor-0.2.2.3-1.fc19.src/data-accessor-0.2.2.3.tar.gz
f21535cd4cc6746a20c86357b481f9155f46f126720bc283f105d4a1d7ca41b9
ghc-data-accessor-0.2.2.3-1.fc19.src/data-accessor-0.2.2.3.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.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --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. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
ghc(data-accessor-0.2.2.3) = 512a11844de71aa58d4d2be806ad29a6 is needed by
(installed) ghc-data-accessor-devel-0.2.2.3-1.fc17.x86_64
ghc-data-accessor = 0.2.2.3-1.fc17 is needed by (installed)
ghc-data-accessor-devel-0.2.2.3-1.fc17.x86_64
[+]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.
[-]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Installed the packages. Loaded Data.Accessor.Basic into ghci. Loads fine.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
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=QXitZieunl&a=cc_unsubscribe
11 years, 5 months