Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451413 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-14 11:20 EST ------- Let's hold on for a bit here. You've opened very many tickets like this one, but there are several issues. 1) Are these your first Fedora packages? I don't see you in the account system, which suggests that you need a sponsor. Is this the case? 2) You really need to provide us with a link to an actual src.rpm that can be reviewed. There are simply not enough package reviewers to expect us to be able to assemble your packages for you. 3) Fedora is unfortunately lacking in guidelines for packaging Haskell packages. Someone was working to develop guidelines but they stopped and at the moment we have nothing. We will at least need to consult the packaging committee (of which I'm a member) on whether we want to permit Haskell packages to enter the distribution in the absense of guidelines. I'd suggest that you stop adding new haskell package review tickets until that's decided. 4) While the specfiles don't seem too bad, I'd suggest several cleanups: - Don't include %define'd macros that aren't actually used in the spec. - The large comment blocks describing things like scriptlet ordering are somewhat distracting and unnecessary. - I don't understand the need for a code block like this: setup=Setup.lhs [ -f $setup ] || setup=Setup.hs [ -f $setup ] || { echo "No Setup in package root! Aborting."; exit 1; } Surely the package builds, so the final line shouldn't be necessary. Surely one of the two initial lines is appropriate for this package; why not just use the right one? - The string "(package for GHC Haskell)" in the Summary: should be unnecessary. There may be a better way to word this if you really want to include "GHC" in the summary instead of having it be obvious from the name of the package; I suggest running " yum info perl-\*|grep Summary for some suggestions. - License: OtherLicense is invalid; you must either choose an applicable License: tag from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing or talk to the legal folks about obtaining a new tag which better fits the license in use. - The spec needs to choose either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and use them consistently; they should not both appear in the same specfile. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Macros - Your %description seems to have been line-wrapped somehow. If you agree with the above, please go ahead and make the applicable changes in all of the packages you have submitted, post links to actual src.rpms and I'll take the the issue of Haskell packaging in general to the committee. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review