Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630208 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(mathstuf@xxxxxxxx | |m) | --- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-09-11 15:35:23 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > I am utterly unfamiliar with Haskell. I'm happy to negotiate on any point, > given my ignorance. > > The strange permissions are exactly that. Wouldn't 0644 make more sense? > Since ghc-csv-prof is a profiling package, I assume that its errors and > warnings are irrelevant. A comment to this effect in the .spec would be nice. The strange permissions are a relic of my umask of 027. When put into git and the lookaside, they get the proper 644 (git only tracks +x or -x and the lookaside has 644). > [-] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > > There is apparently some pretty good voodoo in ghc-rpm-macros. I'd like to see > some comments describing that this is the reason for common_summary being > defined buy only appearing once and the outright lack of %files and %doc - at > least, I'm assuming that that's the reason. As-is, I'd say that this .spec > file is not legible to someone without an existing ghc background. The spec magic is standard ghc-rpm-macros voodoo. The bulk of it is generated by the cabal2spec tool. The ghc_lib_package macro is in the following file: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=ghc-rpm-macros.git;a=blob;f=ghc-rpm-macros.ghc %files is generated by grepping the cabal file for the license file that gets installed and adding it to %doc. It also makes the information for the -devel and -prof (which is akin to a -debuginfo of sorts) packages. Haskell is predictable since cabal standardizes many things and the directories and such are generated given %{pkg_name} and %{version}. > [?] MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library > files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must > call ldconfig in %post and %postun. > > Is it fair to say that this doesn't apply to > /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/csv-0.1.1/libHScsv-0.1.1-ghc6.12.3.so? The ghc_lib_package runs the ghc-pkg recache which registers the library with ghc's linking. > [?] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec > file's %files listings. > > I'm assuming that ghc-rpm-macros enforces this, but I have no easy way of > knowing. Legibility is not there. rpm -qlp ghc-csv-*.<arch>.rpm The COPYING file should be in there. > [-] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set > with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > > The 0640 permissions found by rpmlint are probably not "proper". There is no > legible %files section or comment. > [?] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. > > ghc-csv-devel contains /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/csv-0.1.1/libHScsv-0.1.1.a; I'm > unsure if this is qualifies as a static library. Haskell is a statically built language for some things. Hopefully ghc-7.0 will help get us proper shared libraries across the board. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review