Spec URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org//ghc-wl-pprint.spec SRPM URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org//ghc-wl-pprint-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This is a pretty printing library based on Wadler's paper "A Prettier Printer". See the haddocks for full info. This version allows the library user to declare overlapping instances of the 'Pretty' class.
This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6741749
New URLs Spec URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/ghc-wl-pprint/ghc-wl-pprint.spec SRPM URL: http://codeblock.fedorapeople.org/packages/ghc-wl-pprint/ghc-wl-pprint-1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
Note the spec file link and srpm spec file are slightly diffently! Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: 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. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/petersen/pkgreview/1087956-ghc-wl- pprint/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 378880 bytes in 17 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) Please fix when importing. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-wl-pprint-1.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ghc-wl-pprint-devel-1.1-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ghc-wl-pprint-1.1-1.fc21.src.rpm ghc-wl-pprint.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1 ['1.1-1.fc21', '1.1-1'] ghc-wl-pprint.src: W: strange-permission wl-pprint-1.1.tar.gz 0600L 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ghc-wl-pprint ghc-wl-pprint-devel ghc-wl-pprint.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1 ['1.1-1.fc21', '1.1-1'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/petersen/pkgreview/1087956-ghc-wl-pprint/srpm/ghc-wl-pprint.spec 2014-05-19 13:37:02.184763390 +0900 +++ /home/petersen/pkgreview/1087956-ghc-wl-pprint/srpm-unpacked/ghc-wl-pprint.spec 2014-04-16 02:28:10.000000000 +0900 @@ -1,2 +1,4 @@ +# https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Haskell + %global pkg_name wl-pprint @@ -59,4 +61,4 @@ %changelog -* Tue Apr 15 2014 Fedora Haskell SIG <haskell.org> - 1.1-1 +* Tue Apr 15 2014 Fedora Haskell SIG <haskell.org> - 1.1 - spec file generated by cabal-rpm-0.8.10 Requires -------- ghc-wl-pprint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-wl-pprint-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(wl-pprint-1.1-29d7b79b3e4b84ca3bca1ab779ffa5ac) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc-wl-pprint(x86-64) Provides -------- ghc-wl-pprint: ghc(wl-pprint-1.1-29d7b79b3e4b84ca3bca1ab779ffa5ac) ghc-wl-pprint ghc-wl-pprint(x86-64) libHSwl-pprint-1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) ghc-wl-pprint-devel: ghc-devel(wl-pprint-1.1-29d7b79b3e4b84ca3bca1ab779ffa5ac) ghc-wl-pprint-devel ghc-wl-pprint-devel(x86-64) ghc-wl-pprint-static Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-wl-pprint: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/wl-pprint-1.1/libHSwl-pprint-1.1-ghc7.6.3.so Source checksums ---------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/package/wl-pprint-1.1/wl-pprint-1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0634abe0eabbdcb5fc307d54b0d763659d0d2aaa193767e67f337500a71b779a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0634abe0eabbdcb5fc307d54b0d763659d0d2aaa193767e67f337500a71b779a Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1087956 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Haskell, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Package is APPROVED Please sync the spec file when importing.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-wl-pprint Short Description: The Wadler/Leijen Pretty Printer Upstream URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/wl-pprint Owners: codeblock petersen Branches: f19 f20 epel7
Git done (by process-git-requests).
ghc-wl-pprint-1.1-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-wl-pprint-1.1-1.fc20
ghc-wl-pprint-1.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-wl-pprint-1.1-1.fc19
ghc-wl-pprint-1.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
ghc-wl-pprint-1.1-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
ghc-wl-pprint-1.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.