Bug 451413
| Summary: | Review Request: ghc-compression - Common compression algorithms for GHC Haskell | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rajesh Krishnan <raj.dev.redhat> | ||||||||||
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody> | ||||||||||
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> | ||||||||||
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |||||||||||
| Priority: | low | ||||||||||||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, haskell-devel, j, notting, petersen, rjones | ||||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||||||
| Target Release: | --- | ||||||||||||
| Hardware: | All | ||||||||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||||||||
| URL: | http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/compression | ||||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2008-06-17 23:24:09 UTC | Type: | --- | ||||||||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||
|
Description
Rajesh Krishnan
2008-06-14 10:02:22 UTC
Created attachment 309337 [details]
ghc-compression-0.1-1.spec
Created attachment 309338 [details]
ghc-compression.cabal.patch
Added FlexibleInstances compiler option to .cabal file.
Created attachment 309339 [details]
ghc-compression.Inflate.hs.patch
Modified code to get this thing to compile, as the underlying bytestring APIs
seem to have changed.
Created attachment 309340 [details]
ghc-compression.Utils.hs.patch
Modified code to fix compiler errors, as the underlying bytestring APIs have
changed.
Let's hold on for a bit here.
You've opened very many tickets like this one, but there are several issues.
1) Are these your first Fedora packages? I don't see you in the account system,
which suggests that you need a sponsor. Is this the case?
2) You really need to provide us with a link to an actual src.rpm that can be
reviewed. There are simply not enough package reviewers to expect us to be able
to assemble your packages for you.
3) Fedora is unfortunately lacking in guidelines for packaging Haskell packages.
Someone was working to develop guidelines but they stopped and at the moment we
have nothing. We will at least need to consult the packaging committee (of
which I'm a member) on whether we want to permit Haskell packages to enter the
distribution in the absense of guidelines. I'd suggest that you stop adding new
haskell package review tickets until that's decided.
4) While the specfiles don't seem too bad, I'd suggest several cleanups:
- Don't include %define'd macros that aren't actually used in the spec.
- The large comment blocks describing things like scriptlet ordering are
somewhat distracting and unnecessary.
- I don't understand the need for a code block like this:
setup=Setup.lhs
[ -f $setup ] || setup=Setup.hs
[ -f $setup ] || { echo "No Setup in package root! Aborting."; exit 1; }
Surely the package builds, so the final line shouldn't be necessary.
Surely one of the two initial lines is appropriate for this package; why not
just use the right one?
- The string "(package for GHC Haskell)" in the Summary: should be unnecessary.
There may be a better way to word this if you really want to include "GHC"
in the summary instead of having it be obvious from the name of the package;
I suggest running " yum info perl-\*|grep Summary for some suggestions.
- License: OtherLicense is invalid; you must either choose an applicable
License: tag from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing or talk to the
legal folks about obtaining a new tag which better fits the license in use.
- The spec needs to choose either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and use them
consistently; they should not both appear in the same specfile. See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros
- Your %description seems to have been line-wrapped somehow.
If you agree with the above, please go ahead and make the applicable changes in
all of the packages you have submitted, post links to actual src.rpms and I'll
take the the issue of Haskell packaging in general to the committee.
Also, could I ask that you submit your reviews through the form at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=extras-review or at least get the Summary for the tickets set properly as Review Request: package-name - Package summary We have scripts which parse these out so it's easier for you to receive a review if you use the standard format. Could you fix up the tickets you've opened? Please also cc fedora-haskell-list on all haskell package reviews. Thanks. Also, this is not the right compression library to be packaging. Please don't waste time on it, as it is unlikely to be approved. At this point I'm not sure that the person submitting these tickets is even reading the comments, as there has been no response to any commentary and new tickets continue to pour in with the same mistakes. I'm beginning to think these are just drive-by submissions, with no intention of actually listening to any comments or maintaining these packages in Fedora. They need to stop. I guess we should close all of these. As Jason says it seems the submitter will never have intention to react to us (also see bug 451397, bug 451398) Ok has someone contacted the submitter? I can try to contact them. I sent a private mail to clarify. I am mass-closing these submissions, as they are completely useless and do not follow any of the packaging guidelines. Do not attempt to reopen them. |