Bug 710031 (ghc-Agda)
| Summary: | Review Request: ghc-Agda - Dependently typed functional programming language | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jens Petersen <petersen> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan> |
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | low | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, haskell-devel, lakshminaras2002, miles, notting, shakthimaan |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | shakthimaan:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2012-06-10 01:26:52 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: | 782000 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | 710383 | ||
|
Description
Jens Petersen
2011-06-02 10:04:04 UTC
Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-Agda/ghc-Agda.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-Agda/ghc-Agda-2.2.10-2.fc15.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3107707 Fixed the last missing BRs. Agda-2.3.0 was just released. It has a new dependency on hashtables. I will update to 2.3.0 soon. Updating to current 2.3.0 release: Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-Agda/ghc-Agda.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-Agda/ghc-Agda-2.3.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Note it needs latest redhat-rpm-config update to build for %ghc_arches_with_ghci (currently being pushed to f15 updates stable). http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3788957 (25min in koji) Update to 2.3.0.1 release for ghc-7.4.1: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-Agda/ghc-Agda.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-Agda/ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Builds in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3975851 Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
==== C/C++ ====
[x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[-]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules.
[-]: MUST Package contains no static executables.
[-]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
[-]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if
present.
Waived.
[-]: MUST Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present.
==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the
package failed to build because of missing BR
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr(....) present in %files -n emacs-agda section. This is OK
if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: 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 is included in %doc.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
The http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Agda page says "OtherLicense" while http://code.haskell.org/Agda/LICENSE says it is a BSD license. Why does the .spec file say it is MIT license?
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
$ rpmlint ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm
ghc-Agda.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parameterized -> parameter
ghc-Agda.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mixfix -> mix fix, mix-fix, mix
ghc-Agda.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intuitionistic -> intuition, contortionist, constitutions
ghc-Agda.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US foundational -> foundation, unconditional
ghc-Agda.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
$ rpmlint ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
ghc-Agda.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parameterized -> parameter
ghc-Agda.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mixfix -> mix fix, mix-fix, mix
ghc-Agda.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intuitionistic -> intuition, contortionist, constitutions
ghc-Agda.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US foundational -> foundation, unconditional
ghc-Agda.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
$ rpmlint ghc-Agda-devel-2.3.0.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
ghc-Agda-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parameterized -> parameter
ghc-Agda-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mixfix -> mix fix, mix-fix, mix
ghc-Agda-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intuitionistic -> intuition, contortionist, constitutions
ghc-Agda-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US foundational -> foundation, unconditional
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
$ rpmlint ../SPECS/ghc-Agda.spec
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
/home/shaks/710031/Agda-2.3.0.1.tar.gz :
MD5SUM this package : 3caa2466ae4f925dd37320336e2e839c
MD5SUM upstream package : 3caa2466ae4f925dd37320336e2e839c
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
Issues:
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: defattr(....) present in %files -n emacs-agda section. This is OK
if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3
External plugins:
> [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: defattr(....) present in %files -n emacs-agda section. This is OK > if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed No plans presently to build for epel5. > [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > The http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Agda page says "OtherLicense" while > http://code.haskell.org/Agda/LICENSE says it is a BSD license. Why does the > .spec file say it is MIT license? The LICENSE file is MIT, plus one file which is BSD. So strictly speaking I guess the Fedora License tag should actually be "MIT and BSD" I guess. I think older Cabal did not support the MIT license tag so that is why it is OtherLicense. Probably the .cabal could/should be updated upstream to say MIT now. I will try to ask them about it - anyway don't think it blocks this review. Kindly update the license info, and also request upstream to do the same. Otherwise, the package looks good. Package approved. Thanks again for the review. Sure, I will fix the License tag when importing. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-Agda Short Description: Dependently typed functional programming language Owners: petersen Branches: f17 f16 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig Git done (by process-git-requests). ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-2.fc16 ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-2.fc17 ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 testing repository. ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-9.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-9.el6 ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-9.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. |