[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version||ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc17 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-10-28 23:36:14 Status|ON_QA |CLOSED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Shakthi Kannan changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_DEV |RELEASE_PENDING Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Shakthi Kannan --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-arrows Short Description: Classes that extend the Arrow class Owners: shakthimaan Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan ---
Output from fedora-review
Package Review
==
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
[!]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
Note: ghc-arrows-devel-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm :
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.0.4/arrows-0.4.4.0/libHSarrows-0.4.4.0.a ghc-arrows-
devel-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm :
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.0.4/arrows-0.4.4.0/libHSarrows-0.4.4.0_p.a
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[ ]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[ ]: 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.
[!]: Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
Note: ghc-arrows-devel-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm :
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.0.4/arrows-0.4.4.0/libHSarrows-0.4.4.0.a ghc-arrows-
devel-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm :
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.0.4/arrows-0.4.4.0/libHSarrows-0.4.4.0_p.a
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[!]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[ ]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[ ]: Package is not relocatable.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and w
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746
Lakshmi Narasimhan changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ON_DEV
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ghc-arrows-devel-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm
../ghc-arrows.spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
License is BSD.
[+]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.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it
is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be
specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to
deal with this.
sha256sum arrows-0.4.4.0.tar.gz
ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc16.src/arrows-0.4.4.0.tar.gz
4999ba909061f5bede09e6116e2cac1cf89f04d3429a4a2be6ef79a677d89bb5
arrows-0.4.4.0.tar.gz
4999ba909061f5bede09e6116e2cac1cf89f04d3429a4a2be6ef79a677d89bb5
ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc16.src/arrows-0.4.4.0.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
[+]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.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
ghc(arrows-0.4.4.0) = c871892887d8c9a8a81b6aba26d0627c is needed by
(installed) ghc-arrows-devel-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64
ghc-arrows = 0.4.4.0-1.fc17 is needed by (installed)
ghc-arrows-devel-0.4.4.0-1.fc17.x86_64
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]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.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Installed the packages. Loaded Control.Arrow.Transformer into ghci. Loads fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
APPROVED.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Lakshmi Narasimhan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||lakshminaras2...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|lakshminaras2...@gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|peter...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|peter...@redhat.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 841746] Review Request: ghc-arrows - Classes that extend the Arrow class
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=841746 Shakthi Kannan changed: What|Removed |Added CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org --- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan --- $ rpmlint ghc-arrows.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc16.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-arrows-0.4.4.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-arrows-devel-0.4.4.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Successful Koji builds for F16, F17 and F18 respectively: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4274656 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4274659 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4274660 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
