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=425882 --- Comment #35 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 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 /usr/lib64/ghc-6.8.3/zlib-0.5.0.0/libHSzlib-0.5.0.0.a 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 /usr/lib64/ghc-6.8.3/zlib-0.5.0.0/libHSzlib-0.5.0.0_p.a I agree that the above are all acceptable and expected. * source files match upstream: 20e067cfbec87ec062ac144875a60e158ea6cf7836aac031ec367fcdd5446891 zlib-0.5.0.0.tar.gz * 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-0.5.0.0-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm ghc-zlib = 0.5.0.0-1.fc10 ghc-zlib(x86-64) = 0.5.0.0-1.fc10 = /bin/sh ghc = 6.8.3 haddock09 zlib-devel ghc-zlib-prof-0.5.0.0-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm ghc-zlib-prof = 0.5.0.0-1.fc10 ghc-zlib-prof(x86-64) = 0.5.0.0-1.fc10 = ghc-zlib = 0.5.0.0 * 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review