Bug 517144
Summary: | Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Bryan O'Sullivan <bos> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, haskell-devel, loupgaroublond, notting, petersen |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | Flags: | loupgaroublond:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2009-09-01 03:20:53 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 523883 |
Description
Bryan O'Sullivan
2009-08-12 18:22:24 UTC
MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] [yankee@koan ghc-HUnit]$ rpmlint -iv *{spec,rpm} ghc-HUnit.src: I: checking ghc-HUnit-devel.i586: I: checking ghc-HUnit-devel.ppc: I: checking ghc-HUnit-devel.x86_64: I: checking ghc-HUnit-doc.i586: I: checking ghc-HUnit-doc.i586: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-HUnit library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-HUnit-doc.ppc: I: checking ghc-HUnit-doc.ppc: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-HUnit library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-HUnit-doc.x86_64: I: checking ghc-HUnit-doc.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-HUnit library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-HUnit-prof.i586: I: checking ghc-HUnit-prof.i586: E: devel-dependency ghc-HUnit-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-HUnit-prof.i586: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-HUnit-prof.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/HUnit-1.2.0.3/libHSHUnit-1.2.0.3_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-HUnit-prof.ppc: I: checking ghc-HUnit-prof.ppc: E: devel-dependency ghc-HUnit-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-HUnit-prof.ppc: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-HUnit-prof.ppc: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/HUnit-1.2.0.3/libHSHUnit-1.2.0.3_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-HUnit-prof.x86_64: I: checking ghc-HUnit-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-HUnit-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-HUnit-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-HUnit-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.3/HUnit-1.2.0.3/libHSHUnit-1.2.0.3_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; 6 errors, 6 warnings. >>> CHECK -> normal for haskell packages, with the exception of the description warning. Please fix it. 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 -> Presuming innocence here re: using the official tarballfor the Platform project. 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] >>> 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 fix the description Will do, thanks. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-HUnit Short Description: unit testing support for Haskell Owners: bos ynemoy petersen Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: haskell-sig we are not doing F-12 branches yet. Otherwise cvs done. ghc-HUnit-1.2.0.3-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-HUnit-1.2.0.3-1.fc11 (In reply to comment #1) > 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 -> Presuming innocence here re: using the official tarballfor the Platform project. I didn't understand this comment: the reference src tarball is from hackage. > 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 > SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A > package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > >>> CHECK Errm, HUnit is already in ghc.... So do we remove HUnit from ghc or drop this package for now? Looks like a typo in haskell-platform.cabal to me? Or am I totally confused? > Looks like a typo in haskell-platform.cabal to me?
Correctly it is part of ghc-src-extralibs, which haskell-platform
will replace of course.
Anyway we don't need this until we drop extras from ghc.
Are they the same version? Personally, i'd rather deliver as many libraries via subpackages anyways. Is the tarball from hackage then? Some of the tarballs Bryan used came from the platform tarball and for some reason did not checksum properly. It was the only problem we found, and for the matter of speed, i let it slide, as the reviewer. GHC 6.12 will be out within a matter of weeks (beta is scheduled for September 14), and won't include any extralibs, so let's just leave this as is. We'll be wanting to upgrade within the early lifetime of F-12. Anyway thanks for picking up the haskell-platform - I hadn't been following and it is starting to make sense now. (In reply to comment #8) > Are they the same version? Good question - sure we need to keep the package in sync with haskell-platform. > Personally, i'd rather deliver as many libraries via > subpackages anyways. Hmm, well I thought about this too - weighing the effort of separate packages with the complexity of haskell-platform subpackages. Anyway we seems to have started going down the separate package path which which should be good and fine as long as we are careful to preserve version: I'll add a comment about haskell-platform in the spec file and suggest we do the same for all packages that form a part of Platform. (In reply to comment #9) > Is the tarball from hackage then? Some of the tarballs Bryan used came from the > platform tarball and for some reason did not checksum properly. It was the only > problem we found, and for the matter of speed, i let it slide, as the reviewer. That is a no-no really - either we use the hackage packages or the haskell-platform tarball I don't think we should mix them - presumably all haskell-platform packages are available as separate tarballs since haskell-platform also is distributed without them. (In reply to comment #9) > Is the tarball from hackage then? Anyway yes it is: I just checked - please do so next time: I usually include the md5sum in the review. 948b5b20ff22fa81c6390b08d6af5104 HUnit-1.2.0.3.tar.gz Once I figured out that the checksums were different, I rolled the real RPMs that are now in rawhide from the original packages on hackage, not the platform tarball. So this won't arise again. Thanks, Bryan :) I still feel like it is going to be hard to keep all the separate packages in sync and avoid accidental version bumps, etc and wonder if packaging the full haskell-platform package might not be easier maintenance-wise? We are still missing a lot of extralibs and platform packages anyway in Fedora. (This might be going over ground we already covered, but just wonder how you feel on it having started the separate packaging?) Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ghc-HUnit New Branches: el6 Owners: bos petersen InitialCC: haskell-sig Git done (by process-git-requests). |