[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517197] New: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517197
Summary: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bos@serpentine.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list@redhat.com Depends on: 517155 Classification: Fedora
Bryan O'Sullivan bos@serpentine.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
Spec: http://www.serpentine.com/bos/files/ghc-GLUT.spec SRPM: http://www.serpentine.com/bos/files/ghc-GLUT-2.1.1.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: This package provides the Haskell GLUT library for ghc. This is a set of bindings to the C freeglut library.
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=517197
Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |loupgaroublond@gmail.com Flag| |needinfo?(bos@serpentine.co | |m)
--- Comment #1 from Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond@gmail.com 2009-08-20 06:38:02 EDT --- Oddly enough, i can't get the md5sums to match. The file sizes of what is shipped in the RPM is different than what i get from Hackage.
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=517197
Bryan O'Sullivan bos@serpentine.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(bos@serpentine.co | |m) |
--- Comment #2 from Bryan O'Sullivan bos@serpentine.com 2009-08-20 14:06:28 EDT --- Updated SRPM now at the above URL.
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=517197
Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Yaakov Nemoy loupgaroublond@gmail.com 2009-08-28 10:24:56 EDT --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] (devshell)[yankee@koan ghc-GLUT]$ rpmlint -iv *{spec,rpm} ghc-GLUT.src: I: checking ghc-GLUT-devel.i686: I: checking ghc-GLUT-devel.ppc: I: checking ghc-GLUT-devel.x86_64: I: checking ghc-GLUT-doc.i686: I: checking ghc-GLUT-doc.ppc: I: checking ghc-GLUT-doc.x86_64: I: checking ghc-GLUT-prof.i686: I: checking ghc-GLUT-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-GLUT-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself.
ghc-GLUT-prof.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
ghc-GLUT-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.4/GLUT-2.1.1.2/libHSGLUT-2.1.1.2_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package.
ghc-GLUT-prof.ppc: I: checking ghc-GLUT-prof.ppc: E: devel-dependency ghc-GLUT-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself.
ghc-GLUT-prof.ppc: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
ghc-GLUT-prof.ppc: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.4/GLUT-2.1.1.2/libHSGLUT-2.1.1.2_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package.
ghc-GLUT-prof.x86_64: I: checking ghc-GLUT-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-GLUT-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself.
ghc-GLUT-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files.
ghc-GLUT-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.4/GLUT-2.1.1.2/libHSGLUT-2.1.1.2_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package.
10 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings.
CHECK -- Normal for a haskell package
MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
CHECK
MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
CHECK
MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
CHECK
MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
CHECK
MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3]
CHECK
MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
CHECK
MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
CHECK
MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
CHECK
MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
CHECK
MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7]
CHECK
MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
CHECK
MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
CHECK
MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [12]
CHECK
MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [13]
CHECK
MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [14]
CHECK
MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
CHECK
MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
CHECK
MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
CHECK
MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
CHECK
MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18]
CHECK
MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [22]
CHECK
MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24]
CHECK
MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25]
CHECK
MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26]
CHECK
SHOULD Items: Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do.
SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [27]
CHECK
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [29]
CHECK
SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [30]
CHECK
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
CHECK
SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [22] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [31]
CHECK
SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [32]
CHECK
Resolution: PASS
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=517197
Bryan O'Sullivan bos@serpentine.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Bryan O'Sullivan bos@serpentine.com 2009-08-28 12:04:36 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-GLUT Short Description: bindings to the C GLUT library Owners: bos petersen ynemoy Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: haskell-sig
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=517197
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2009-08-28 12:09:56 EDT --- I've just created the F-11 branch. If you really, really need a very early F-12 branch, we may be able to do that later today, so if that's what you need then go ahead and make another CVS request.
CVS done.
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=517197
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |petersen@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loupgaroublond@gmail.com
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=517197
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
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=517197
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
Bug 517197 depends on bug 517155, which changed state.
Bug 517155 Summary: Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517155
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |ERRATA
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-09-12 01:39:46 EDT --- bos built this a while back: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=129691
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=517197
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-09-12 01:40:12 EDT --- ghc-GLUT-2.1.1.2-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-GLUT-2.1.1.2-2.fc11
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=517197
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2009-09-15 03:46:13 EDT --- ghc-GLUT-2.1.1.2-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=517197
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |523883
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=517197
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2010-10-05 00:44:04 EDT --- Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ghc-GLUT New Branches: el6 Owners: bos petersen InitialCC: haskell-sig
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=517197
--- Comment #10 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2010-10-05 09:23:11 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla