[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Nov 13 19:22:14 UTC 2008

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


--- Comment #35 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-11-13 14:22:12 EDT ---
One remaining question: if ghc library packages in the future do grow a runtime
component, that will imply not only that this package grows a -devel subpackage
but that anything which build against it has to change to having a build
dependency on the -devel package.  That could be avoided now in a couple of
ways, but I don't know whether the possibility of ghc supporting shared
libraries is sufficiently remote that its not worth it.  The simplest way is
for this package to provide ghc-zlib-devel and for other packages to
BuildRequires: that.  In any case, I'll leave that up to you folks.

You will definitely need some extra dependencies for the scriptlets.  I think
there's one that's not listed above in comment 34; you'll need
Rerquires(postun): haddock for the %ghc_reindex_haddock script.  I'm not sure
what is required for the register.sh and unregister.sh scripts although I
suspect the above list should do it.

We definitely need to get the full list of dependencies into the guidelines. 
Currently I think the haddock ones are missing.  Or am I confused and is
haddock somehow brought in by ghc?

rpmlint output:
  ghc-zlib.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package 
  ghc-zlib.x86_64: E: devel-dependency zlib-devel
  ghc-zlib-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
  ghc-zlib-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package 
I agree that the above are all acceptable and expected.

* source files match upstream:
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
   (library for ghc -> ghc- prefix)
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint has acceptable complaints.
X Scriptlet dependencies are mostly missing.
  final provides and requires:

   ghc-zlib =
   ghc-zlib(x86-64) =
   ghc = 6.8.3

   ghc-zlib-prof =
   ghc-zlib-prof(x86-64) =
   ghc-zlib =

* 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 present.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -doc subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

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