[Bug 488665] Review Request: hscolour - Haskell source code highlighter
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=488665 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen 2009-03-18 01:42:50 EDT --- imported and built -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488665] Review Request: hscolour - Haskell source code highlighter
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=488665 Kevin Fenzi changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-03-17 23:31:06 EDT --- cvs done. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488665] Review Request: hscolour - Haskell source code highlighter
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=488665 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen 2009-03-17 04:34:16 EDT --- Thanks for the review. New Package CVS Request === Package Name: hscolour Short Description: Haskell source highlighting Owners: petersen Branches: F-10 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488665] Review Request: hscolour - Haskell source code highlighter
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=488665 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What|Removed |Added Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-03-13 19:00:09 EDT --- Ok, URL is good. Waiving the warnings and error that can be waived for the obvious reasons. They were included only for completeness. I'm gonna let the executable-stack warning pass for now. This might bear some looking into. The other issues have been fixed, so this is APPROVED. -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488665] Review Request: hscolour - Haskell source code highlighter
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=488665 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen 2009-03-10 07:15:01 EDT --- [ok, take2: first attempt to reply earlier disappeared with firefox...] (In reply to comment #1) > http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/darcs/hscolour/ Thanks - fixing. > IMO the upstream maintains a nice website. Agreed better to use an upstream website when available and up to date. > ghc-hscolour-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation > ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation > ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hscolour-devel These can be waived I think. > hscolour.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/HsColour 0775 Reproduced and still investigating. > hscolour.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/HsColour Yes, I think this is common to ghc executables. I checked and alex, cabal-install, cpphs, ghc, darcs, happy, etc all have this too. > # 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] > Fail: See above rpmlint Fixing with %attr for now anyway. SPEC: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/hscolour/hscolour.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/hscolour/hscolour-1.12-2.fc10.src.rpm -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 488665] Review Request: hscolour - Haskell source code highlighter
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=488665
Yaakov Nemoy changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||loupgaroubl...@gmail.com
Flag||fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-03-09
00:44:41 EDT ---
Here begins the review
After eyeballing it, of note, the actual url is:
http://www.cs.york.ac.uk/fp/darcs/hscolour/
This begs the question, do we want to put the onus on the packager to go to the
hackage page and see if there is an alternate link given? Since that link is
given in the cabal file anyways, should cabal2spec pull it out automatically?
Or rather, do we want to have some sort of OCD everything must link to hackage
if it's available there so we can be sure it's a hackage package?
IMO the upstream maintains a nice website.
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.[1]
ghc-hscolour-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.1/hscolour-1.12/libHShscolour-1.12_p.a
ghc-hscolour-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hscolour-devel
hscolour.x86_64: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/bin/HsColour 0775
hscolour.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/HsColour
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
# 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 .
FAIL: see rpmlint error about file permissions
# 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]
To the supposed chagrin of the author, Check :)
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
Check, but please use block instead of cursive next time.
# 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 - 4328a84b87b245693bcf10b49c608e43
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
Check - x86_64
# 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]
Currently excludes ppc64 in conformance with ghc issues. 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: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
N/A
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
N/A
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [11]
N/A
# 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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[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]
Fail: See above rpmlint
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15]
Chec
[Bug 488665] Review Request: hscolour - Haskell source code highlighter
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=488665 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fedora-haskell-l...@redhat. ||com -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
