[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 476483] Review Request: ghc-paths - library for information about ghc paths

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Dec 17 01:42:24 UTC 2008

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #1 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-12-16 20:42:23 EDT ---
Builds fine; rpmlint says:
  ghc-paths-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
which is true, and not a problem.

  ghc-paths.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package 
  ghc-paths-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package 
which are normal for Haskell packages.

The only real complaint I have is that the module description doesn't make a
whole lot of sense.  I guess it must make sense if you understand Haskell
(which I don't); that's not really unheard of when it comes to specialized
modules for various languages, so I'm not going to worry about it.  Maybe you
can think of something more sensible.

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   ghc-paths-devel =
   ghc-paths =
   ghc-paths(x86-64) =
   ghc = 6.10.1

   ghc-paths-prof =
   ghc-paths-prof(x86-64) =
   ghc-paths =
   ghc-prof = 6.10.1

* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* scriptlets OK (ghc package registration and documentation indexing)
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.


The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

More information about the Fedora-haskell-list mailing list