Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: ghc-rosezipper - Generic zipper implementation for Haskell
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
Summary: Review Request: ghc-rosezipper - Generic zipper implementation for Haskell Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: lakshminaras2002@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list@redhat.com Classification: Fedora Story Points: ---
This package is required for yi (a text editor).
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=703152
--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com 2011-05-09 09:38:00 EDT --- http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-rosezipper.spec
http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-rosezipper-0.2-1.fc14.sr...
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=703152
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com 2011-06-10 08:27:13 EDT --- Downgrading the version to 0.1
Spec file : http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-rosezipper.spec
SRPM file : http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-rosezipper-0.1-1.fc14.sr...
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=703152
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |712659(yi)
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=703152
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |notready
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
--- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com --- http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-rosezipper.spec
http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-rosezipper-0.2-2.fc16.sr...
rpmlint -i ghc-rosezipper-0.2-2.fc16.src.rpm ghc-rosezipper-0.2-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-rosezipper-devel-0.2-2.fc16.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-rosezipper.spec 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|notready |Ready
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
--- Comment #4 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com --- http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4241740
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
Shakthi Kannan shakthimaan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |shakthimaan@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |shakthimaan@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
Shakthi Kannan shakthimaan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_DEV
--- Comment #5 from Shakthi Kannan shakthimaan@gmail.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [-]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [-]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [-]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [-]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: ghc-rosezipper-0.2-2.fc18.i686.rpm : /usr/lib/ghc-7.4.1/rosezipper-0.2/libHSrosezipper-0.2-ghc7.4.1.so [-]: MUST Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint ghc-rosezipper-0.2-2.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ghc-rosezipper-devel-0.2-2.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ghc-rosezipper-0.2-2.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/shaks/rpmbuild/fedora-reviews/703152/rosezipper-0.2.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : a3cdd1906f95f004454d230b1a847e8c MD5SUM upstream package : a3cdd1906f95f004454d230b1a847e8c
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Although ghc-containers gets pulled automatically, it is better to explicitly include it in BuildRequires since .cabal mentions it as a dependency.
Otherwise package looks good.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 External plugins:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
--- Comment #6 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com --- Hi, Thanks for the review. I have included ghc-containers-devel in BR.
http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-rosezipper.spec
http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc16.sr...
rpmlint -i ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-rosezipper-devel-0.2-3.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc16.src.rpm ../ghc-rosezipper.spec 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4324912
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
Shakthi Kannan shakthimaan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_DEV |VERIFIED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Shakthi Kannan shakthimaan@gmail.com --- Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com --- Thanks.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-rosezipper Short Description: Generic zipper implementation for Haskell Owners: narasim Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: haskell-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|VERIFIED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc16
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc16
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-08-05 17:21:04
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=703152
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-rosezipper-0.2-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org