haskell-devel September 2010

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
456 discussions

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 629124] Review Request: ghc-libmpd - Haskell library for mpd communication
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '10

31 Aug '10

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=629124 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |ready --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-08-31 23:01:53 EDT --- ghc-libmpd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum ghc-libmpd.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) mpd -> mod, mp, pd ghc-libmpd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mpd -> mod, mp, pd ghc-libmpd.src: W: strange-permission ghc-libmpd.spec 0640L ghc-libmpd.src: W: strange-permission libmpd-0.4.1.tar.gz 0640L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Basically looks ok to me - would be nice to fix the strange-permission warnings though. -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 609518] Review Request: ghc-glib - Haskell GLib binding
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '10

31 Aug '10

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 609518] Review Request: ghc-glib - Haskell GLib binding
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '10

31 Aug '10

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=609518 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mathstuf(a)gmail.com --- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> 2010-08-31 22:56:21 EDT --- [OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb ghc-glib.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum ghc-glib.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum ghc-glib-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum ghc-glib-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-glib-devel ghc-glib-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-glib-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/glib-0.11.1/libHSglib-0.11.1_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. [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 License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [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 package <b>MUST</b> 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. 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. [OK] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the <code>%find_lang</code> macro. Using <code>%{_datadir}/locale/*</code> is strictly forbidden. [OK] 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 <code>%post</code> and <code>%postun</code>. [OK] 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. [OK] 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. [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. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every <code>%files</code> section must include a <code>%defattr(...)</code> line. [OK] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains <code>rm -rf %{buildroot}</code> (<a href="/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags" title="Packaging/Guidelines" class="mw-redirect">or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT</a>). [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. (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). [OK] 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. [OK] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [OK] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [OK] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [OK] 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. [OK] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: <code>Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} </code> [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 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. [OK] 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 <code>filesystem</code> or <code>man</code> 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. [OK] MUST: At the beginning of <code>%install</code>, each package MUST run <code>rm -rf %{buildroot}</code> (<a href="/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#UsingBuildRootOptFlags" title="Packaging/Guidelines" class="mw-redirect">or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT</a>). [OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [OK] 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. [OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [OK] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [OK] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [OK] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [OK] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [OK] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Looks good to me. 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 629124] Review Request: ghc-libmpd - Haskell library for mpd communication
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '10

31 Aug '10

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 619991] Review Request: ghc-text - Haskell efficient packed Unicode text type
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '10

31 Aug '10

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=619991 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-08-31 22:21:36 EDT --- Thanks for taking the review. Updating to new release: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-text/ghc-text.spec Srpm: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-text/ghc-text-0.8.0.0-1.fc13.src.rpm -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460974] Review Request: xmobar - status bar for X
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Aug '10

31 Aug '10

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=460974 --- Comment #19 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> 2010-08-31 22:16:38 EDT --- I'll take it. I have libmpd to do as well at least. Can do without the optional deps for now though: Spec: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/xmobar/xmobar.spec SRPM: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/xmobar/xmobar-0.11.1-1.fc14.src.rpm % lintmock fedora-14-x86_64-bb xmobar.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, Minimalist, minimalism xmobar.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging xmobar.src: W: strange-permission xmobar-0.11.1.tar.gz 0640L xmobar.src: W: strange-permission xmobar.spec 0640L xmobar.src: W: no-buildroot-tag xmobar.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) minimalistic -> minimalist, Minimalist, minimalism xmobar.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins -> plug ins, plug-ins, plugging xmobar.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary xmobar 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. -- 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.

1 0

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel September 2010