[Bug 1026432] Review Request: ghc-pcap - Haskell bindings for libpcap
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jan 6 07:55:19 UTC 2014
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1026432
Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> ---
Sounds good.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[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". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/petersen/pkgreview/1026432-ghc-
pcap/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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Missing "Requires: pcap-devel" in devel subpackage. I think it is needed.
I recommend appending %{?_isa} to ".*Requires: *libpcap-devel".
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 778240 bytes in 37 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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
Haskell:
[x]: Static libs in devel package
Yay initial Haskell plugin (output editted;)
===== 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).
Except issue listed above
[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.
[-]: 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.
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6363233
[-]: %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 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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-pcap-0.4.5.2-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
ghc-pcap-devel-0.4.5.2-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm
ghc-pcap-0.4.5.2-1.fc20.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ghc-pcap-devel ghc-pcap
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
ghc-pcap-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
ghc(pcap-0.4.5.2-3a21a7f495dd452a593a880072e14ac5)
ghc-compiler
ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f)
ghc-devel(network-2.4.1.2-ceff6721a9d15c92aeb91b7ff1b8e52b)
ghc-devel(time-1.4.0.1-10dc4804a19dc0000fab79908f1a9f50)
ghc-pcap(x86-64)
ghc-pcap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
ghc(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f)
ghc(network-2.4.1.2-ceff6721a9d15c92aeb91b7ff1b8e52b)
ghc(time-1.4.0.1-10dc4804a19dc0000fab79908f1a9f50)
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)
libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-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)
libHSmtl-2.1.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSnetwork-2.4.1.2-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)
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)
libHSunix-2.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
libpcap.so.1()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
libutil.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
ghc-pcap-devel:
ghc-devel(pcap-0.4.5.2-3a21a7f495dd452a593a880072e14ac5)
ghc-pcap-devel
ghc-pcap-devel(x86-64)
ghc-pcap-static
ghc-pcap:
ghc(pcap-0.4.5.2-3a21a7f495dd452a593a880072e14ac5)
ghc-pcap
ghc-pcap(x86-64)
libHSpcap-0.4.5.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ghc-pcap: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/pcap-0.4.5.2/libHSpcap-0.4.5.2-ghc7.6.3.so
Source checksums
----------------
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/pcap/0.4.5.2/pcap-0.4.5.2.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
e7e92e6ff4bffa22102335a38dabb97fd0771fdf3b75d45cd7c1708c85e1cd5f
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e7e92e6ff4bffa22102335a38dabb97fd0771fdf3b75d45cd7c1708c85e1cd5f
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1026432
Buildroot used: fedora-20-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Haskell, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: BATCH, EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
Basically the package looks okay, but there are a few small problems:
- ghc-pcap-devel needs a Requires for pcap-devel
- better to suffix pcap-devel with %{?_isa}
- Summary could be simplified I think and possibly extend %description.
- nitpicking but I suggest moving the BR for pcap-devel after
"# End cabal-rpm deps".
(I realized that cabal-rpm should probably support .buildinfo files
so that it would pickup the pcap-devel dependency.)
If you can update with these minor changes I am happy to approve
the package and sponsor you. I would also like to help review
bustle (any plans to release it on Hackage?)
when you come to submit it for review. Please also copy me
on or let me know of any other initial package submissions you do.
--
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=rNVIjqePk2&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the haskell-devel
mailing list