[Bug 974724] Review Request: ghc-haskell-lexer - A fully compliant Haskell 98 lexer
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jul 22 13:15:01 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974724
Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org |petersen at redhat.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> ---
Only real problem I see is that the license file is MIT though
the cabal file claims it is BSD which it is not.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
Note: Archive *.a files found in ghc-haskell-lexer-devel
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
This is allowed for Fedora Haskell libraries.
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 1495040 bytes in 22 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
Still smaller than size of the static libs - waived.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc-
haskell-lexer-devel
This is okay since API hash which is used in generated requires
is arch dependent anyway.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
License is MIT not BSD.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: 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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1525760 bytes in /usr/share 10240 ghc-
haskell-lexer-1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 1515520 ghc-haskell-lexer-
devel-1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
I feel this can be waived:
$ du -s ghc-haskell-lexer-devel-1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm/usr/*
8112 lib64
1500 share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-haskell-lexer-1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
ghc-haskell-lexer-devel-1.0-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ghc-haskell-lexer ghc-haskell-lexer-devel
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
ghc-haskell-lexer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-haskell-lexer-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
ghc(haskell-lexer-1.0-4cd87c449a1c5d8d5a2f881ebc601d24)
ghc-compiler
ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
ghc-haskell-lexer
Provides
--------
ghc-haskell-lexer:
ghc(haskell-lexer-1.0-4cd87c449a1c5d8d5a2f881ebc601d24)
ghc-haskell-lexer
ghc-haskell-lexer(x86-64)
libHShaskell-lexer-1.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
ghc-haskell-lexer-devel:
ghc-devel(haskell-lexer-1.0-4cd87c449a1c5d8d5a2f881ebc601d24)
ghc-haskell-lexer-devel
ghc-haskell-lexer-devel(x86-64)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ghc-haskell-lexer:
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/haskell-lexer-1.0/libHShaskell-lexer-1.0-ghc7.6.3.so
Source checksums
----------------
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/haskell-lexer/1.0/haskell-lexer-1.0.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
86d0c4071295c8613eb965768cb61a0c8422fc0c429a49c7a93e93a72b185b86
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
86d0c4071295c8613eb965768cb61a0c8422fc0c429a49c7a93e93a72b185b86
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 974724
I am happy to approve if you update License to MIT.
But this discrepancy should be reported to the author.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=A0dSDCnHmV&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the haskell-devel
mailing list