Bug 855701 (cabal-rpm) - Review Request: cabal-rpm - creates rpm spec files for Haskell Cabal packages
Summary: Review Request: cabal-rpm - creates rpm spec files for Haskell Cabal packages
Alias: cabal-rpm
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Narasimhan
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2012-09-10 04:11 UTC by Jens Petersen
Modified: 2014-10-22 18:47 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version: cabal-rpm-0.9.1-1.el5
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2012-09-25 16:37:48 UTC
Type: ---
lakshminaras2002: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jens Petersen 2012-09-10 04:11:41 UTC
Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/cabal-rpm/cabal-rpm.spec
SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/cabal-rpm/cabal-rpm-0.6.2-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: RPM package creator for Haskell Cabal-based packages
Fedora Account System Username: petersen

This is planned to cabal2spec: perhaps I should add an obsoletes.


cabal-rpm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cabal-rpm

Comment 1 Jens Petersen 2012-09-10 04:13:50 UTC
> This is planned to cabal2spec: perhaps I should add an obsoletes.

Sorry, I meant planned to *replace* the current cabal2spec script.

Comment 2 Narasimhan 2012-09-18 11:42:54 UTC
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.
rpmlint  -i cabal-rpm-0.6.2-1.fc17.src.rpm cabal-rpm-0.6.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm  ../cabal-rpm.spec 
cabal-rpm.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cabal-rpm
Each executable in standard binary directories should have a man page.

2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
        Version-release - Matches
        License - OK
        No prebuilt external bits - OK
        Spec legibity - OK
        Package template - OK
        Arch support - OK
        Libexecdir - OK
        rpmlint - yes
        changelogs - OK
        Source url tag  - OK, validated.
        Build Requires list - OK
        Summary and description - OK
        API documentation - OK, NA

[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[+]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.
COPYING file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
sha256sum cabal-rpm-0.6.2-1.fc17.src/cabal-rpm-0.6.2.tar.gz cabal-rpm-0.6.2.tar.gz 
f4d9efae8973fc3fe837e46f7580945511bb9df4302472860a0e4c62c871de07  cabal-rpm-0.6.2-1.fc17.src/cabal-rpm-0.6.2.tar.gz
f4d9efae8973fc3fe837e46f7580945511bb9df4302472860a0e4c62c871de07  cabal-rpm-0.6.2.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]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.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list.
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
[NA]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[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
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Should items
[+]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. 
[-]SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. 
[-]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. 
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
Ran cabal-rpm on a cabal file. The resulting spec file looks fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.

cabal2spec-diff is OK.


Comment 3 Jens Petersen 2012-09-20 02:00:35 UTC
Thank you for the package review. :)

I am adding creating a manpage to the upstream TODO list.

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: cabal-rpm
Short Description: Create RPM spec files from Haskell Cabal packages
Owners: petersen
Branches: f18 f17 f16
InitialCC: haskell-sig

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-09-20 11:55:22 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2012-09-21 02:54:30 UTC
cabal-rpm-0.6.2-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2012-09-21 02:54:39 UTC
cabal-rpm-0.6.2-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2012-09-21 02:54:50 UTC
cabal-rpm-0.6.2-1.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16.

Comment 8 Jens Petersen 2012-09-21 03:19:20 UTC
Thanks Jon - sorry forgot to request epel6 too:

Package Change Request
Package Name: cabal-rpm
New Branches: el6
Owners: petersen
InitialCC: haskell-sig

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-09-21 10:09:41 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-09-22 06:30:17 UTC
cabal-rpm-0.6.2-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2012-09-24 02:06:52 UTC
cabal-rpm-0.6.2-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2012-09-25 16:37:48 UTC
cabal-rpm-0.6.2-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 13 Jens Petersen 2014-01-13 12:34:45 UTC
Package Change Request
Package Name: cabal-rpm
New Branches: el5
Owners: petersen
InitialCC: haskell-sig

Comment 14 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-01-13 12:46:36 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2014-08-27 01:55:10 UTC
cabal-rpm-0.9.1-1.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2014-10-22 18:47:46 UTC
cabal-rpm-0.9.1-1.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

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