Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-text.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-text-0.11.3.1-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: An efficient packed, immutable Unicode text type (both strict and lazy), with a powerful loop fusion optimization framework. The 'Text' type represents Unicode character strings, in a time and space-efficient manner. This package provides text processing capabilities that are optimized for performance critical use, both in terms of large data quantities and high speed. The 'Text' type provides character-encoding, type-safe case conversion via whole-string case conversion functions. It also provides a range of functions for converting 'Text' values to and from 'ByteStrings', using several standard encodings. Efficient locale-sensitive support for text IO is also supported.
This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5391284
A little background/history: ghc-text was retired after F16 and is currently a haskell-platform (HP) subpackage. However I want to go back to separating the HP libraries from haskell-platform again since that is more flexible and makes Fedora less dependent on HP upstream releases. The coming HP release (2013.2) adds some new lib deps which require text to build - they are already packaged in Fedora. So this package is only needed for F20 currently, but should on current releases too.
For reference the original review is bug 619991 (done by Shakthi:).
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/doc/ghc-text-0.11.3.1 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#DuplicateFiles ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: 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]: %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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc-text- devel [x]: Package complies to the 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". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mbuf/964072-ghc-text/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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 [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). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-text-0.11.3.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ghc-text-devel-0.11.3.1-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ghc-text.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings -> encoding, encoding s, recordings 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ghc-text ghc-text-devel ghc-text.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings -> encoding, encoding s, recordings 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ghc-text (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(array-0.3.0.2) ghc(base-4.3.1.0) ghc(bytestring-0.9.1.10) ghc(deepseq-1.1.0.2) ghc(ghc-prim-0.2.0.0) ghc(integer-gmp-0.2.0.3) libHSarray-0.3.0.2-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.3.1.0-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.9.1.10-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.4.0.0-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.1.0.2-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.2.0.0-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.2.0.3-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-text-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(text-0.11.3.1) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(array-0.3.0.2) ghc-devel(base-4.3.1.0) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.9.1.10) ghc-devel(deepseq-1.1.0.2) ghc-devel(ghc-prim-0.2.0.0) ghc-devel(integer-gmp-0.2.0.3) ghc-devel(text-0.11.3.1) ghc-prof(array-0.3.0.2) ghc-prof(base-4.3.1.0) ghc-prof(bytestring-0.9.1.10) ghc-prof(deepseq-1.1.0.2) ghc-prof(ghc-prim-0.2.0.0) ghc-prof(integer-gmp-0.2.0.3) ghc-text Provides -------- ghc-text: ghc(text-0.11.3.1) ghc-text ghc-text(x86-64) libHStext-0.11.3.1-ghc7.0.4.so()(64bit) ghc-text-devel: ghc-devel(text-0.11.3.1) ghc-prof(text-0.11.3.1) ghc-text-devel ghc-text-devel(x86-64) Source checksums ---------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/text/0.11.3.1/text-0.11.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 76aad4a647cad7099b5a693eb9a4bc5263f7751392d8d1f87b14c78e2069559f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 76aad4a647cad7099b5a693eb9a4bc5263f7751392d8d1f87b14c78e2069559f Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 964072 Successful Koji builds for F17, F18, F19, and F20: Koji f18 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5458254 Koji f19 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5458256 Koji f17 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5458257 Koji f20 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5458255 Can you please check the one issue where /usr/share/doc/ghc-text-0.11.3.1 is owned by both ghc-text and ghc-text-devel RPMs?
Thanks for reviewing the package. Hm, I don't see the duplicate files in the koji builds: is your fedora-17 mock buildroot up to date?
The F17 -> F18 upgrade was probably incomplete. The koji builds look clean though. Package APPROVED.
Thanks again for the review. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-text Short Description: Efficient packed Unicode text type Owners: petersen Branches: f19 f18 InitialCC: haskell-sig
Already exists, please submit Package Change for f18 branch.
Sorry Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: ghc-text New Branches: f19 f18 Owners: petersen InitialCC: haskell-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
I will build this for Rawhide after building ghc-7.6.3.
Built for f20 rawhide