[Bug 1007152] Review Request: ghc-vector-binary-instances - Binary and Serialize instances for vector
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1007152
Ricky Elrod <relrod(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC|package-review(a)lists.fedora |
|project.org |
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ricky Elrod <relrod(a)redhat.com> ---
APPROVED.
Review follows:
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-vector-binary-instances-devel. Does not
provide -static: ghc-vector-binary-instances-devel.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
( Add -static Provides, when you import :) )
===== 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.
[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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 102400 bytes in 20 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 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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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 (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.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-vector-binary-instances-0.2.1.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
ghc-vector-binary-instances-devel-0.2.1.0-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
ghc-vector-binary-instances-0.2.1.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
ghc-vector-binary-instances.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
unboxed -> unbowed, unbounded
ghc-vector-binary-instances.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
storable -> tolerable, stable
ghc-vector-binary-instances.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
unboxed -> unbowed, unbounded
ghc-vector-binary-instances.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
storable -> tolerable, stable
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint ghc-vector-binary-instances-devel ghc-vector-binary-instances
ghc-vector-binary-instances.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
unboxed -> unbowed, unbounded
ghc-vector-binary-instances.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
storable -> tolerable, stable
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
ghc-vector-binary-instances-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
ghc(vector-binary-instances-0.2.1.0-48118d1681bd0ea1f782bbafcb913d30)
ghc-compiler
ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
ghc-devel(binary-0.5.1.1-72ed744c57c32286a49da6dda4f660b7)
ghc-devel(cereal-0.3.5.2-fc098c2a100f7672fe91a2ff0d514d7e)
ghc-devel(vector-0.10.0.1-869166d5d49db46ce6c328ea5f8defbf)
ghc-vector-binary-instances(x86-64)
ghc-vector-binary-instances (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
ghc(binary-0.5.1.1-72ed744c57c32286a49da6dda4f660b7)
ghc(cereal-0.3.5.2-fc098c2a100f7672fe91a2ff0d514d7e)
ghc(vector-0.10.0.1-869166d5d49db46ce6c328ea5f8defbf)
libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSbinary-0.5.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSbytestring-0.10.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHScereal-0.3.5.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHScontainers-0.5.0.0-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)
libHSprimitive-0.5.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSvector-0.10.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
ghc-vector-binary-instances-devel:
ghc-devel(vector-binary-instances-0.2.1.0-48118d1681bd0ea1f782bbafcb913d30)
ghc-vector-binary-instances-devel
ghc-vector-binary-instances-devel(x86-64)
ghc-vector-binary-instances:
ghc(vector-binary-instances-0.2.1.0-48118d1681bd0ea1f782bbafcb913d30)
ghc-vector-binary-instances
ghc-vector-binary-instances(x86-64)
libHSvector-binary-instances-0.2.1.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ghc-vector-binary-instances:
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/vector-binary-instances-0.2.1.0/libHSvector-binary-instances-0.2.1.0-ghc7.6.3.so
Source checksums
----------------
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/vector-binary-instances/0.2.1...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
9450018a61ee5a62b802c1b2cfe8d289b7c8f3debeb0f8828679a4c085d31909
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
9450018a61ee5a62b802c1b2cfe8d289b7c8f3debeb0f8828679a4c085d31909
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1007152
--
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=biajMuwPzi&a=cc_unsubscribe
10 years, 7 months