[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 488397] Review Request: ghc-tar - Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell
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=488397
Bryan O'Sullivan <bos(a)serpentine.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |bos(a)serpentine.com
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |bos(a)serpentine.com
Flag|needinfo?(petersen(a)redhat.c |fedora-review+
|om) |
--- Comment #7 from Bryan O'Sullivan <bos(a)serpentine.com> 2009-08-12 13:07:47 EDT ---
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
All pass cleanly, with a few warnings that are expected given Haskell packaging
issues.
# 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. [2] .
Yes.
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
Yes.
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
BSD.
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
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.[4]
Yes.
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
Yes.
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
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.
Yes.
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
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 MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
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.
Yes.
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
N/A.
# 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. [10]
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. [11]
N/A.
# 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. [12]
Yes.
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [13]
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. [14]
Yes.
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
Yes.
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
Yes.
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
Yes.
# MUST: Large documentation files must 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). [18]
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. [18]
Yes.
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19]
Yes.
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20]
N/A.
# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [21]
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. [19]
N/A.
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [22]
N/A.
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[20]
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. 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.
[23]
N/A.
# 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. [24]
Yes.
# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25]
Yes.
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26]
Yes.
This package is 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.
14 years, 9 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] Haskell Platform
by Yaakov Nemoy
Hey List,
I saw this morning that there has been another release of the Haskell
platform, and it's a shame that we can't provide it yet on Fedora. I
remember there being some discussion about the best way to do it on
Fedora, but i can't remember the details offhand. I think the best
thing to do though would be to package each component as a separate
package, ie, one tarball per source rpm, and then include either an
empty package that depends on it, or messing around with comps.
However we end up doing it though, i do have some good news. Because
of the amount of free time that i have with my new job, i've been able
to spend more than a few hours a week devoted to packaging during the
work week. The only catch is that in order to get new packages in
Fedora, we need at least two people who are willing to do the same. I
don't mind doing packaging or reviewing, but someone or several
someones need to step up and volunteer to do the other half. Either
i'll mass submit a bunch of libraries, and someone can methodically go
through them and review them, or someone else can put up the packages,
and i'll take the time to do the reviews.
Anyone willing?
-Yaakov
14 years, 9 months