[Bug 1023605] Review Request: ghc-language-ecmascript - JavaScript parser and pretty-printer library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Nov 18 05:11:08 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023605
Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whiteboard|Ready |
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
present.
Note: Package has .a files: ghc-language-ecmascript-devel. Does not provide
-static: ghc-language-ecmascript-devel.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
This is a fedora-review bug: ghc-language-ecmascript-static is provided by
devel. Ignored.
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB)
or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 1167360 bytes in 71 files.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
I think this can be waived the devel files are much larger:
19M lib64
1.2M share
===== 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]: 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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
I filed bug 1031482 for the false positives it shows for these 2.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
Would be nice to have a new changelog entry though.
[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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[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.
[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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[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]: 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
===== 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.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
Maybe remove "See CHANGELOG for a summary of changes." from the description.
But I would suggest adding the file to the devel subpackage.
[-]: %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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1228800 bytes in /usr/share
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-language-ecmascript-0.15.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
ghc-language-ecmascript-devel-0.15.2-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
ghc-language-ecmascript-0.15.2-1.fc21.src.rpm
ghc-language-ecmascript.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.15.2
['0.15.2-1.fc21', '0.15.2-1']
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ghc-language-ecmascript ghc-language-ecmascript-devel
ghc-language-ecmascript.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.15.2
['0.15.2-1.fc21', '0.15.2-1']
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
ghc-language-ecmascript (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ghc(Diff-0.3.0-17d3ddb42675017dc066afaa731d1baf)
ghc(QuickCheck-2.6-618e1492f30df5c5d2e8f68385046520)
ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
ghc(containers-0.5.0.0-ab1dae9a94cd3cc84e7b2805636ebfa2)
ghc(data-default-class-0.0.1-28917cfaaa79950ce0c5af98dd8bce64)
ghc(mtl-2.1.2-82086cac9073862cbe01e44b81ec8b9b)
ghc(parsec-3.1.3-441f1388bc13de47c52a9ba8a23194f4)
ghc(pretty-1.1.1.0-66181c695e6a2e173ba2088cf55cc396)
ghc(template-haskell-2.8.0.0-a3012803fde1dc362e555b35a1a78e6d)
ghc(uniplate-1.6.10-9c77af54b48e9237bd9b5b633a0939df)
libHSDiff-0.3.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSQuickCheck-2.6-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSbytestring-0.10.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHScontainers-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSdata-default-class-0.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHShashable-1.1.2.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSmtl-2.1.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSold-locale-1.0.0.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSparsec-3.1.3-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSpretty-1.1.1.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSrandom-1.0.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSsyb-0.4.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHStemplate-haskell-2.8.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHStext-0.11.3.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHStime-1.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHStransformers-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSuniplate-1.6.10-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSunordered-containers-0.2.3.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-language-ecmascript-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
ghc(language-ecmascript-0.15.2-00a97e50e9bf52549fdc3bb812462e85)
ghc-compiler
ghc-devel(Diff-0.3.0-17d3ddb42675017dc066afaa731d1baf)
ghc-devel(QuickCheck-2.6-618e1492f30df5c5d2e8f68385046520)
ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
ghc-devel(containers-0.5.0.0-ab1dae9a94cd3cc84e7b2805636ebfa2)
ghc-devel(data-default-class-0.0.1-28917cfaaa79950ce0c5af98dd8bce64)
ghc-devel(mtl-2.1.2-82086cac9073862cbe01e44b81ec8b9b)
ghc-devel(parsec-3.1.3-441f1388bc13de47c52a9ba8a23194f4)
ghc-devel(pretty-1.1.1.0-66181c695e6a2e173ba2088cf55cc396)
ghc-devel(template-haskell-2.8.0.0-a3012803fde1dc362e555b35a1a78e6d)
ghc-devel(uniplate-1.6.10-9c77af54b48e9237bd9b5b633a0939df)
ghc-language-ecmascript(x86-64)
Provides
--------
ghc-language-ecmascript:
ghc(language-ecmascript-0.15.2-00a97e50e9bf52549fdc3bb812462e85)
ghc-language-ecmascript
ghc-language-ecmascript(x86-64)
libHSlanguage-ecmascript-0.15.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
ghc-language-ecmascript-devel:
ghc-devel(language-ecmascript-0.15.2-00a97e50e9bf52549fdc3bb812462e85)
ghc-language-ecmascript-devel
ghc-language-ecmascript-devel(x86-64)
ghc-language-ecmascript-static
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ghc-language-ecmascript:
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/language-ecmascript-0.15.2/libHSlanguage-ecmascript-0.15.2-ghc7.6.3.so
Source checksums
----------------
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/language-ecmascript/0.15.2/language-ecmascript-0.15.2.tar.gz
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
7c00e20d6e329b5a9add58f644ec8792dfeebcb3ca28333e6bcd67295cd25fc7
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
7c00e20d6e329b5a9add58f644ec8792dfeebcb3ca28333e6bcd67295cd25fc7
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1023605
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
Package is APPROVED but please check over the minor inline comments
above when importing.
--
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=itFkc0nqFy&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the haskell-devel
mailing list