[Bug 1023356] Review Request: ghc-stm - Software Transactional Memory

Fri Oct 25 10:18:18 UTC 2013

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1023356

Christopher Meng <cickumqt at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #3 from Christopher Meng <cickumqt at gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues:
=======
[x] Static libraries in -static or -devel subpackage, providing -devel if
    present.
    Note: Package has .a files: ghc-stm-devel. Does not provide -static: ghc-
    stm-devel.
    See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries

--> No, we should see

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Haskell#Shared_and_static_library_linking

Ignored. ;)

[x] Package do not use a name that already exist
    Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
    https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/ghc-stm
    See:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names

--> Ignored. ;)

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[-]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: Package contains no static executables.
[-]: 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. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/rpmaker/Desktop/ghc-stm/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: 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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 430080 bytes in 42 files.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 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).
[x]: 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.
[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 (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]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-stm-2.4.2-25.fc21.i686.rpm
          ghc-stm-devel-2.4.2-25.fc21.i686.rpm
          ghc-stm-2.4.2-25.fc21.src.rpm
ghc-stm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo
sable, compo-sable, compos able
ghc-stm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable,
compo-sable, compos able
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ghc-stm-devel ghc-stm
ghc-stm.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo
sable, compo-sable, compos able
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

Requires
--------
ghc-stm-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/sh
    ghc(stm-2.4.2-0f41fcf17f5bc067084394f47dbfe7cf)
    ghc-compiler
    ghc-devel(array-0.4.0.1-6380782b62ead58fec616aa07dc0e15c)
    ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-ced5f3d8c90960e9f372129163296e44)
    ghc-stm(x86-32)

ghc-stm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ghc(array-0.4.0.1-6380782b62ead58fec616aa07dc0e15c)
    ghc(base-4.6.0.1-ced5f3d8c90960e9f372129163296e44)
    libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so
    libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so
    libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so
    libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so
    libc.so.6
    libgmp.so.10
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

Provides
--------
ghc-stm-devel:
    ghc-devel(stm-2.4.2-0f41fcf17f5bc067084394f47dbfe7cf)
    ghc-stm-devel
    ghc-stm-devel(x86-32)
    ghc-stm-static

ghc-stm:
    ghc(stm-2.4.2-0f41fcf17f5bc067084394f47dbfe7cf)
    ghc-stm
    ghc-stm(x86-32)
    libHSstm-2.4.2-ghc7.6.3.so

Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ghc-stm: /usr/lib/ghc-7.6.3/stm-2.4.2/libHSstm-2.4.2-ghc7.6.3.so

--> Ignored. ;)

Source checksums
----------------
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/stm/2.4.2/stm-2.4.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
c8ee3cd64c266133902619cfff2d04e5f66206f91dbce8dd1182037fbe4858db
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
c8ee3cd64c266133902619cfff2d04e5f66206f91dbce8dd1182037fbe4858db

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -rvn ghc-stm-2.4.2-25.fc19.src.rpm
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG

-----------------

PACKAGE APPROVED.

-- 
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=jRM3OYTmyG&a=cc_unsubscribe