[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Thanks for reviewing! (In reply to Ricky Elrod from comment #5) APPROVED, but yes please add a URL, Okay I will, thanks. especially since no LICENSE file is included here I should probably have commented more on this initially. I largely followed the packaging of the perl- and ocaml- -srpm-macros packages which also don't include a license files. Since it is just a file listing a few arches there is not too much to license anyway. :) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=5121489 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/rpminfo?rpmID=5129300 (but presumably exists in the upstream). Well pkg git for this package itself now becomes upstream. :) It is true though that ghc-rpm-macros does have a license file (it is also a lot more complicated) though redhat-rpm-config (the former home of macros.ghc-srpm) doesn't. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-srpm-macros Short Description: RPM macros for building Haskell source packages Upstream URL: Owners: petersen Branches: devel InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541 --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- added URL: New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-srpm-macros Short Description: RPM macros for building Haskell source packages Upstream URL: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ghc-srpm-macros.git Owners: petersen Branches: devel InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541 Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-srpm-macros-1.3-2.fc21 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2014-06-26 21:59:25 --- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- Thanks again for reviewing this package in time for F21 feature freeze. We may backport this later to F20, I am not sure: currently in F20 macros.ghc-srpm is still part of redhat-rpm-config. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541
Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com ---
APPROVED, but yes please add a URL, especially since no LICENSE file is
included here (but presumably exists in the upstream).
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
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.
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in
[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- I think we previously talked about the URL in irc. My take is that fedora pkg git will be a sufficient home for this tiny package so I don't see a strong need to add a URL beforehand or I could set it already to http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/ghc-srpm-macros.git. I think it would be nice to ship this in F21 GA but it is not a blocker. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541 Ricky Elrod rel...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||rel...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rel...@redhat.com Alias||ghc-srpm-macros Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541 --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6805218 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- macros.ghc-srpm were recently moved out of redhat-rpm-config into a ghc-rpm-macros subpackage called ghc-srpm-macros. But since the file should be stable and largely independent of ghc-rpm-macros which is updated frequently I think it is better that the srpm macros live in this separate package which redhat-rpm-config requires now. The package is itself (like perl-srpm-macros and ocaml-srpm-macros) is very simple and trivial so it should be a straightforward review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1093541] Review Request: ghc-srpm-macros - RPM macros for building Haskell source packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1093541 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen peter...@redhat.com --- rpmlint output: ghc-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-url-tag ghc-srpm-macros.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ghc-srpm-macros.noarch: W: no-documentation -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
