Bug 558057 - Review Request: ghc-binary - Haskell binary serialisation
Summary: Review Request: ghc-binary - Haskell binary serialisation
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Conrad Meyer
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Whiteboard: ready
Depends On:
Blocks: 522953
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2010-01-23 11:48 UTC by Jens Petersen
Modified: 2014-01-02 11:23 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-02-23 02:06:39 UTC
cse.cem+redhatbugz: fedora-review+
petersen: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jens Petersen 2010-01-23 11:48:41 UTC
Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-binary/ghc-binary.spec
SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-binary/ghc-binary-
Description: Haskell binary serialisation library

Efficient, pure binary serialisation using lazy ByteStrings. Haskell values may be encoded to and from binary formats, written to disk as binary, or sent over the network. Serialisation speeds of over 1 G/sec have been observed, so this library should be suitable for high performance scenarios.


Comment 1 Jens Petersen 2010-01-23 11:49:47 UTC
Needed to build latest ghc-hashed-storage required by darcs-2.4.

Comment 2 Conrad Meyer 2010-02-17 04:36:48 UTC
BAD = Please fix.
N/A = Doesn't apply to this package.
YES = Fine.
??? = I have some question(s).

- [ YES ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should
be posted in the review.

(I've excluded the incorrect spelling warnings)

ghc-binary.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %ghc_lib_package
ghc-binary.src: E: description-line-too-long C been observed, so this library should be suitable for high performance scenarios.
ghc-binary.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
ghc-binary.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
ghc-binary.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
ghc-binary.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag
1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings.

- [ YES ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming

- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name},
in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on
Package Naming Guidelines.

- [ YES ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

cabal2spec-diff looks good.

- [ YES ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved
license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.

- [ YES ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match
the actual license.

- [ YES ] 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.

- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

- [ YES ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the
reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to
perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the
Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/).

- [ YES ] 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.

sha512sum = 9f33f23d361a6a64c93097c99c794e2324fe5069fb0eb020cb5b3b1c2ad007ed0bdae660aeb58ec58625d9ddd885110d7642f092f25d82863d7dc14fb5cf04b3

- [ YES ] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into
binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.

- [ N/A ] 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 needs
to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package
does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should
then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process,
so they should put this description in the comment until the package is
approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation
with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more)
of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues:
FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc,

- [ YES ] 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.

- [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done
by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly

- [ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.

- [ N/A ] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager
must state this fact in the request for review, along with the
rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this,
use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.

- [ YES ] 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. Refer to the Guidelines for

- [ YES ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the
%files listing.

- [ YES ] 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.

- [ YES ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).

- [ YES ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described
in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines.

- [ YES ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging

- [ YES ] MUST: Large documentation files should 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.)

- [ YES ] 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.

- [ YES ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

- [ YES ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

- [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must
'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability).

- [ N/A ] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix)
must go in a -devel package.

- [ YES ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must
require the base package using a fully versioned dependency:
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

- [ YES ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives,
these should be removed in the spec.

- [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. This is described in detail
in the desktop files section of the Packaging Guidelines. If you feel
that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you
must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.

- [ YES ] 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.

- [ N/A ] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run
rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). See Prepping BuildRoot For
%install for details.

- [ YES ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

- [ N/A ] 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.

- [ N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec
file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages,
if available.

- [ YES ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in
mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this.

- [ YES ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms
on all supported architectures.

Tested on x86_64.

- [ YES ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.

- [ YES ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.

- [ YES ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require
the base package using a fully versioned dependency.

- [ N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed
in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a
devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.

- [ N/A ] 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. Please see File Dependencies
in the Guidelines for further information.


Comment 3 Jens Petersen 2010-02-17 09:57:29 UTC
Thanks, Konrad :)

New Package CVS Request
Package Name: ghc-binary
Short Description: Haskell binary serialisation
Owners: petersen
Branches: F-13
InitialCC: haskell-sig

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2010-02-19 19:07:53 UTC
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

Comment 5 Jens Petersen 2010-02-23 02:06:39 UTC
Imported and built to devel.


Thanks again

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2010-02-24 08:08:38 UTC
ghc-binary- has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2010-02-25 12:44:31 UTC
ghc-binary- has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 8 Jens Petersen 2010-10-04 02:06:30 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: ghc-binary
New Branches: el6
Owners: petersen
InitialCC: haskell-sig

Comment 9 Kevin Fenzi 2010-10-04 19:05:26 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 10 Jens Petersen 2013-12-27 07:24:56 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: ghc-binary
New Branches: el5
Owners: petersen
InitialCC: haskell-sig

Comment 11 Jens Petersen 2014-01-02 11:23:08 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.