Spec URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas.spec SRPM URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas-0.3.4-1.fc13.src.rpm Description: This is my attempt at packaging the Haskell bindings for the augeas library. The package is in Hackage at http://hackage.haskell.org/package/augeas. I used cabal2spec to generate the spec file.
This is my first package, and I am seeking a sponsor.
Can I ask you to update to cabal2spec-0.22.2, please? (Sorry I only just get round to backporting it to F13 until now.) Also please add a changelog entry and fill in the license. We use ghc_pkg_deps for the haskell dependencies rather than direct Buildrequires.
Also it would be nice to hear what you plan to use augeas for in fedora in terms of further dependencies, etc.
I have published an updated spec file and SPRM at the following locations:Spec URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas.spec SRPM URL http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas-0.3.4-1.fc14.src.rpm I've rebuilt the spec file using caabal2spec-0.22.2, filled out the license, updated the changelog, and switched to using ghc_pkg_deps and ghc_c_pkg_deps instead of direct BuildRequires. (In reply to comment #2) > Can I ask you to update to cabal2spec-0.22.2, please? > (Sorry I only just get round to backporting it to F13 until now.) > > Also please add a changelog entry and fill in the license. > We use ghc_pkg_deps for the haskell dependencies rather > than direct Buildrequires.
ghc-augeas is a Haskell binding for the augeas library from the augeas-devel package, so it would be used if you wanted to use the augeas library in your Haskell program. It's similar to already-existing python-augeas, java-augeas, ocamal-augeas, and ruby-augeas packages, only with Haskell. I have augeas-devel listed in the ghc_c_pkg_deps, (In reply to comment #3) > Also it would be nice to hear what you plan to use augeas for in fedora > in terms of further dependencies, etc.
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.
Sorry I completely lost track of this one... Some time has passed so would be good if you could refresh the package to the current cabal2spec templates.
I rebuilt the spec file with cabal2spec-0.24.1 and republished an updated spec file and SPRM at the following locations: Spec URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas.spec SRPM URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas-0.5.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Please let me know if there's anything else I should be doing. Thanks !
Hi Please provide a summary and description relevant for the package instead of using the default ones provided by the template. In BuildRequires : ghc-HUnit-devel should be ghc-HUnit-prof , if this package will be built for f14. Also, remove the comment under %build section. Add a new changelog entry in addition to the default one created by the template. Please provide a summary of the changes you have made (in one or two sentences). Increment Release from 0 to 1. Otherwise looks fine. Thanks.
Thanks for the feedback. I've updated the spec file based on your comments and pushed the spec file and SRPM to the following locations: Spec URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas.spec SRPM URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas-0.5.1-1.fc15.src.rpm Please let me know if there's anything else I should be doing. Thanks !
Thanks for updating I think I can review this for you as sponsor if you can clean up a little more: We usually put the summary and description in common_summary and common_description. Please remember to bump the release number and add a new changelog entry when you update the package. You should use _bindir and _datadir instead of explicitly writing /usr/bin and /usr/share. You can add (doc) files under the %file sections but you need to be careful since secondary archs don't have shared libraries (ie base subpackage). If you are serious about packaging it would also help if you looked at some other packages that need reviewing and posted comments on them - feel free to put links here to any reviews you have looked over.
Ping?
Thanks for you comment on bug 747031. If you have updated this package then great if you can post the new url and srpm here. :)
I have a new spec file and source RPM available. I didn't understand the comment about the secondary archs not having shared libraries, so I may have missed something there. Spec URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas.spec SRPM URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas-0.6.1-1.fc16.src.rpm As for looking at other packages, I've left the following comments, which looked to be similar Haskell library binding projects. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=648095#c3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664214#c7 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=747031#c5
Ok, thanks for updating. Builds in koji rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4000859 It would be nice to see a changelog entry in the spec file showing what has changed - though I understand you have used cabal2spec to help generate the updated spec file, but it is useful to have this package history. rpmlint output: ghc-augeas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP ghc-augeas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt ghc-augeas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml ok ghc-augeas.src:49: W: macro-in-comment %doc ghc-augeas.src:49: W: macro-in-comment %{name} BTW seems the spec file in the srpm has a comment not in the spec file you also published and that comment is causing the above 2 warnings. ghc-augeas.src: W: file-size-mismatch augeas-0.6.1.tar.gz = 56246, http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/augeas/0.6.1/augeas-0.6.1.tar.gz = 56263 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Can you not package the tarball released on Hackage?
Ok I changed the whiteboard to NotReady - please change back to Ready after updating if you can.
It looks like I had some configuration management and darcs tagging issues that I've hopefully resolved now. I ran rpmlint on the srpm and I'm just getting the spelling-error warnings in the URL now. There is a new spec file and source RPM available. Spec URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas.spec SRPM URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas-0.6.1-2.fc16.src.rpm
Thanks for the submission. My only quibble is that currently the the spec file url and spec file in the srpm have differing last changelog entries. Build succeeds in koji f18: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4182838 I am offering to sponsor Jude upon successful completion of this review. Here is my review: Here is the review: +:ok, NA: not applicable, !: needs attention MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output [1] ghc-augeas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP ghc-augeas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt ghc-augeas.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. ghc-augeas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP ghc-augeas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt ghc-augeas.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US html -> HTML, ht ml, ht-ml 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. ghc-augeas-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP ghc-augeas-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US api -> pi, ape, apt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [+] MUST: package named according to Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name} [2] [+] MUST: meet Packaging Guidelines [+] MUST: Fedora approved license and Licensing Guidelines [!] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license. [3] Since you allow LGPL 3 or later I think the correct License tag is LGPLv3+ [+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source [4] [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English [5] and legible. [6] [+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release (from upstream URL) 123cb7d684447c03b645e9439f0b70bb augeas-0.6.1.tar.gz [+] MUST: successfully compile and build into binary rpms on a primary arch [7] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4182838 [NA] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [8] [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations [9] [NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [11] [NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [12] [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [13] [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [14] [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [15] [+] MUST: consistently use macros [16] [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] [NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [18] [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [18] [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19] [+] MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20] [NA] 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. [19] [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [21] [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [20] [NA] 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. [22] [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [23] [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [29] So only remaining issue is just correcting the License tag. Since this is your first package can I ask you to update the package and I will approve the package and sponsor you.
I would also suggest the following minor tweaks in the .spec but they do not block the review. -BuildRequires: ghc-HUnit-prof -BuildRequires: augeas-devel%{?isa} +BuildRequires: ghc-HUnit-prof +BuildRequires: augeas-devel%{?isa} %description %{common_description} @@ -43,8 +43,8 @@ %install %ghc_lib_install -rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} -rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/%{pkg_name}-%{version} +rm -r $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_bindir} +rm -r $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_datadir}/%{pkg_name}-%{version} # devel subpackage @@ -57,12 +57,13 @@ %ghc_devel_post_postun -%ghc_files LICENSE AUTHORS ChangeLog README THANKS +%ghc_files LICENSE +%doc AUTHORS ChangeLog README THANKS
I've applied the changes from comments 18 and 19. There is a new spec file and source RPM available. Spec URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas.spec SRPM URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas-0.6.1-3.fc16.src.rpm Please let me know if there's anything else I should be doing. Thanks !
Thanks for submitting your package and updating. Looks good to me now (though your spec files are still different;-). http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4199008 Package is APPROVED You are now here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Get_Sponsored so please apply for membership of the Packager (I think it is still called) and I will sponsor you: if you can let me know when you have done so it will be easier for me. Then you can proceed to make the SCM request for adding this package.
I must be overlooking something pretty obvious. How do I go about applying for membership in the Packager group ?
Sorry my confusion - it seems the process has changed - I need to add you. What is your fedora account id?
I can't find your email in FAS.
I should warn that package reviews expire after 3 months...
I dropped the ball here. My Fedora account name is 'pwan' The email associated with the account is 'fedora'
I think it is better you use the same email address for your fedora account and bugzilla. Anyway if you are still keen to add this package to Fedora we could do a new review.
OK, I've updated my FAS account so both emails be 'jude' now. I'm up for doing a new review.
Ok great