Bug 664214 (ghc-gconf)
| Summary: | Review Request: ghc-gconf - Binding to the GNOME configuration database system | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002> |
| 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: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | cristian.ciupitu, fedora-package-review, haskell-devel, jude, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | NotReady | ||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2012-08-11 11:52:32 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: | |||
|
Description
Narasimhan
2010-12-19 09:52:51 UTC
You need to include the text of the license in its documentation files. This is mandatory.
I would also suggest replacing the pkg_name macro with srcname which is less confusing, but this is entirely your choice.
On the other hand the common_description macro looks useless to me because it's used in a single place. Wouldn't be better if you removed it and used something like this?
%description
GConf is a configuration database ....
%if %{with shared}
This package provides the shared library.
%endif
The same goes for common_summary.
Hello,
There is a COPYING file in /usr/share/doc/ghc-gconf-{version}. That contains the license text.
Sorry, you're right. I looked at rpmlint's output for ghc-gconf-prof and thought that it was for ghc-gconf. As for the macros, I've noticed that xmonad uses a similar SPEC, so I guess your SPEC is fine from this point of view. koji scratch build for other reviewers: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2689186 As earlier discussed on Fedora haskell-devel list, dropping libraries for now from the toplevel of Haskell-pkg-reviews, so we, the Haskell SIG, can focus more on getting Haskell apps into Fedora. To get you library back under the tracker please submit a bin or binlib package that depends on this library and make this bug block that package review. It is a good idea to submit full stacks of packages and then to add the toplevel program to the tracker. http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-gconf-0.11.1-2.fc14.src.rpm http://narasim.fedorapeople.org/package_reviews/ghc-gconf.spec rpmlint -i ghc-gconf.spec ~/rpmbuild/SRPMS/ghc-gconf-0.11.1-2.fc14.src.rpm ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/i686/ghc-gconf-*.rpm ghc-gconf-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-gconf-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-gconf-prof.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-gconf-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.3/gconf-0.11.1/libHSgconf-0.11.1_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. 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. 0.11.2 version may not build with F15 and rawhide. Will upgrade to 0.12 for > F15. Not too many reverse deps: http://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/gconf I'm commenting on this bug as per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656892#c11. You might want to rebuild the spec file with the latest cabal2spec which is at version 0.25.4 now. Besides that, comment #5 covers the other comments I would have made. Closing this bug. |