[Bug 670007] New: Review Request: ghc-bloomfilter - A fast, space efficient Bloom filter implementation
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-bloomfilter - A fast, space efficient Bloom filter implementation Alias: ghc-bloomfilter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=670007
Summary: Review Request: ghc-bloomfilter - A fast, space efficient Bloom filter implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low 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 Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
SPEC file URL : http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/ghc-bloomfilter.spec
SRPM URL : http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/ghc-bloomfilter-1.2.6.7-1.f13.src.rpm
rpmlint output:
rpmlint -i ghc-bloomfilter-*fc14*.rpm ../ghc-bloomfilter.spec ghc-bloomfilter-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-bloomfilter-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself.
ghc-bloomfilter-prof.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
ghc-bloomfilter-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.3/bloomfilter-1.2.6.7/libHSbloomfilter-1.2.6.7_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package.
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
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=670007
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |notready
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2011-09-21 11:49:11 EDT --- I am not sure what this is needed for?
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=670007
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(lakshminaras2002@ | |gmail.com)
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2011-10-24 21:40:12 EDT --- http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/bloomfilter
Should we close this?
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=670007
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(lakshminaras2002@ | |gmail.com) |
--- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com 2012-04-14 05:49:45 EDT --- Hi Jens, git-annex needs this now. I will update the spec file and srpm.
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=670007
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|low |medium
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=670007
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard|notready |Ready
--- Comment #4 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com 2012-04-14 07:53:09 EDT --- http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/ghc-bloomfilter.spec
http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-bloomfilter-1.2.6.8-1.fc...
rpmlint output: rpmlint -i ghc-bloomfilter-1.2.6.8-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ghc-bloomfilter-devel-1.2.6.8-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ghc-bloomfilter-1.2.6.8-1.fc15.src.rpm ../ghc-bloomfilter.spec 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3990656
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=670007
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |662259(git-annex)
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=670007
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |petersen@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
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=670007
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2012-04-17 05:53:51 EDT --- Thanks for updating the package.
(BTW I think you maybe forgot to upload the new .spec file.)
Here is review using the fedora-review package template. (We should really add a haskell check module.)
Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [x]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [-]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: ghc-bloomfilter-1.2.6.8-1.fc18.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/ghc-7.4.1/bloomfilter-1.2.6.8/libHSbloomfilter-1.2.6.8-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. [x]: 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 [x]: 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. [-]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint ghc-bloomfilter-1.2.6.8-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ghc-bloomfilter-devel-1.2.6.8-1.fc18.i686.rpm
ghc-bloomfilter-devel.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided ghc-bloomfilter-doc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
-- this is ok
rpmlint ghc-bloomfilter-1.2.6.8-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/petersen/pkgreview/ghc-bloomfilter/670007/bloomfilter-1.2.6.7.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : None MD5SUM upstream package : 97ce543f074e6acca938514555a34c9a
c6bd1eec063b3142171e7fee6611df3c bloomfilter-1.2.6.8.tar.gz
[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. [-]: 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. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues: [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. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
(explicitly listed now with rawhide macros)
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint ghc-bloomfilter-1.2.6.8-1.fc18.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint ghc-bloomfilter-devel-1.2.6.8-1.fc18.i686.rpm
ghc-bloomfilter-devel.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided ghc-bloomfilter-doc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
ok, waived
rpmlint ghc-bloomfilter-1.2.6.8-1.fc18.i686.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/petersen/pkgreview/ghc-bloomfilter/670007/bloomfilter-1.2.6.7.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : None MD5SUM upstream package : 97ce543f074e6acca938514555a34c9a
Looks like a fedora-review bug...
See above for correct for md5sum.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL [!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: ghc-bloomfilter-1.2.6.8-1.fc18.i686.rpm :
/usr/lib/ghc-7.4.1/bloomfilter-1.2.6.8/libHSbloomfilter-1.2.6.8-ghc7.4.1.so See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DevelPackages
NA for ghc Haskell packages.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3
Package APPROVED
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=670007
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard|Ready |
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=670007
Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Lakshmi Narasimhan lakshminaras2002@gmail.com 2012-04-17 07:24:51 EDT --- Thanks for the review. Uploaded the latest spec.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-bloomfilter Short Description: A fast, space efficient Bloom filter implementation Owners: narasim Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: haskell-sig
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=670007
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-04-17 09:27:33 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla