[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 709949] Review Request: highlighting-kate - Source code highlighting tool and library
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=709949
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2011-07-09 09:44:26 EDT ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
pmlint -i highlighting-kate.spec built/*.rpm
ghc-highlighting-kate.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Sourcecode ->
Source code, Source-code, Outsource
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-highlighting-kate.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers
-> parser, parses, parers
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-highlighting-kate-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Sourcecode
-> Source code, Source-code, Outsource
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-highlighting-kate-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
parsers -> parser, parses, parers
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
highlighting-kate.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Sourcecode -> Source
code, Source-code, Outsource
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
highlighting-kate.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers ->
parser, parses, parers
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
highlighting-kate.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US commandline ->
command line, command-line, commandment
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
highlighting-kate.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Sourcecode -> Source
code, Source-code, Outsource
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
highlighting-kate.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers ->
parser, parses, parers
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
highlighting-kate.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US commandline
-> command line, command-line, commandment
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
highlighting-kate.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Highlight
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 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, GPL v2 and above.
No prebuilt external bits - OK. No binaries as such. Generated xml
files are present. These have been generated
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 .
GPLv2+ 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 in base package.
[+]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 md5sum for this task.
md5sum highlighting-kate-0.2.9.tar.gz
3a4fd1706020c8aa840c310b15528bca highlighting-kate-0.2.9.tar.gz
md5sum highlighting-kate-0.2.9-1.fc15.src/highlighting-kate-0.2.9.tar.gz
3a4fd1706020c8aa840c310b15528bca
highlighting-kate-0.2.9-1.fc15.src/highlighting-kate-0.2.9.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.
[NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro
[NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and
%postun.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[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.
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.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
API Documenation in devel package.
[+]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: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-highlighting-kate
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc-highlighting-kate = 0.2.9-1.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-highlighting-kate-devel-0.2.9-1.fc15.x86_64
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[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 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 functions as described.
Installed the packages.Ran Highlight program. No issues.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is OK. Upgrade to latest cabal2spec.
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.
12 years, 10 months
Re: [Fedora-haskell-list] dropping ghc_lib_package and ghc_binlib_package?
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen
So this will allow us to add extra files to base or devel package if necesssary, is that right?
Yep, that's right - back to "normal" packaging. :)
So for example you can just add docdir files with %doc as normal, etc.
Currently there is actually a problem with our binlib packages' doc files:
we're duplicating docdir content across the base package and base lib package
which is a bit naughty and actually not allowed under the packaging guidelines I believe.
This change should also allow us to fix that more easily.
It is partly Cabal's "fault" for not linking binlib binaries with own library:
ie xmonad is not linked against ghc-xmonad unfortunately. The common
but tedious practice is to have a -common subpackage to host the shared doc files -
we should probably go that way until can't persuade Cabal to change...
Jens
12 years, 10 months
