[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 476483] Review Request: ghc-paths - library for information about ghc paths
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=476483
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2008-12-16 20:42:23 EDT ---
Builds fine; rpmlint says:
ghc-paths-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
which is true, and not a problem.
ghc-paths.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.1/ghc-paths-0.1.0.5/libHSghc-paths-0.1.0.5.a
ghc-paths-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.1/ghc-paths-0.1.0.5/libHSghc-paths-0.1.0.5_p.a
which are normal for Haskell packages.
The only real complaint I have is that the module description doesn't make a
whole lot of sense. I guess it must make sense if you understand Haskell
(which I don't); that's not really unheard of when it comes to specialized
modules for various languages, so I'm not going to worry about it. Maybe you
can think of something more sensible.
* source files match upstream. sha256sum:
ea9e97425894e3dbd7915e00e107e2e7fc07b6e8293fd2dd66a813f0673cba10
ghc-paths-0.1.0.5.tar.gz
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
ghc-paths-0.1.0.5-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
ghc-paths-devel = 0.1.0.5-1.fc11
ghc-paths = 0.1.0.5-1.fc11
ghc-paths(x86-64) = 0.1.0.5-1.fc11
=
/bin/sh
ghc = 6.10.1
ghc-paths-prof-0.1.0.5-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm
ghc-paths-prof = 0.1.0.5-1.fc11
ghc-paths-prof(x86-64) = 0.1.0.5-1.fc11
=
ghc-paths = 0.1.0.5-1.fc11
ghc-prof = 6.10.1
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* scriptlets OK (ghc package registration and documentation indexing)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
APPROVED
The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 4 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=426751
--- Comment #32 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-12-15 23:17:38 EDT ---
> but in case the documentation is not big,
> there is no need to add it to a separate doc subpackage.
Documentation is not actually being subpackaged here: the flag would just be
for whether the docs get build or not: generally no reason not to do that,
though occasionally docs building can break with certain versions of haddock
say.
> Here is a patch:
> http://till.fedorapeople.org/ghx-X11-buildcond.patch
Thanks - will try to fold that into the templates.
> Btw. is there any need to require a certain version of ghc except for making
> sure that the pkg_libdir exists, i.e. would it be possible to just use a
> Requires: ghc, given that one can use some spec-fu to automatically build the
> pkg_libdir path and Requires from the ghc version that was used to build the
> rpm? Iirc it was only required in previous Fedora releases, to allow parallel
> installation of different ghc version, which is not supported anymore.
Good question. I see what you're saying, but since ghc libraries change ABI
with every minor version I think it is useful to document what version a
library has been built with - though I suppose one can also look at the binary
package metadata for that. Let's think a little more about it.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 4 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=426751
--- Comment #31 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-12-15 20:45:31 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #30)
> Actually, the prof packages should be seen as mandatory, not optional, so there
> is no reason that there should be a flag to control whether or not they are
> built.
Bryan is probably right, we can probably drop the prof flag - at least I can't
think of any cases profiling has blocked building a package: my reason for
having it is really more to save time for debugging builds sometimes (either
build time or time downloading ghc-prof), but for small libraries it probably
doesn't make sense so I think it is safe to remove from the default template
and then big libraries (like gtk2hs) might still have a prof build flag but
that would be up to the maintainer.
bcond looks better though: so I will use that for docs and other
places/packages.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 4 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=426751
Bryan O'Sullivan <bos(a)serpentine.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |bos(a)serpentine.com
--- Comment #30 from Bryan O'Sullivan <bos(a)serpentine.com> 2008-12-15 19:00:38 EDT ---
Actually, the prof packages should be seen as mandatory, not optional, so there
is no reason that there should be a flag to control whether or not they are
built.
The reason for this is that if a library is built without profiling, then
nothing that depends on it can ever be built *with* profiling enabled. As a
result, we require that all libraries be built both in profiling and
no-profiling flavours. The issue of whether a -prof RPM is installed on a
system is a separate one.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 4 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=426751
--- Comment #29 from Till Maas <opensource(a)till.name> 2008-12-15 18:35:20 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #28)
> (I am kind of hovering on whether the build_doc and build_prof build switches
> are overkill or not for general libs: sometimes they are useful - they do make
> the spec file a little more complicated but make clear which parts are for docs
> and profiling. The current templates I made have them though.)
Imho the prof packages do not hurt, but in case the documentation is not big,
there is no need to add it to a seperate doc subpackage. Nevertheless I would
prefer to use %bcond_without or %bcond_with macros to make it possible to
easily define whether or not to build the subpackages on the rpmbuild
commandline.
Here is a patch:
http://till.fedorapeople.org/ghx-X11-buildcond.patch
Btw. is there any need to require a certain version of ghc except for making
sure that the pkg_libdir exists, i.e. would it be possible to just use a
Requires: ghc, given that one can use some spec-fu to automatically build the
pkg_libdir path and Requires from the ghc version that was used to build the
rpm? Iirc it was only required in previous Fedora releases, to allow parallel
installation of different ghc version, which is not supported anymore.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 4 months