[Bug 1750102] New: Review Request: ghc-basic-prelude - An enhanced basic and core preludes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
Bug ID: 1750102 Summary: Review Request: ghc-basic-prelude - An enhanced basic and core preludes Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: petersen@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews//ghc-basic-prelude.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews//ghc-basic-prelude-0.7.0-1.fc31.sr...
Description: The premise of basic-prelude is that there are a lot of very commonly desired features missing from the standard Prelude, such as commonly used operators (<$> and >=>, for instance) and imports for common datatypes (e.g., ByteString and Vector). At the same time, there are lots of other components which are more debatable, such as providing polymorphic versions of common functions.
So basic-prelude is intended to give a common foundation for a number of alternate preludes. The package provides two modules: CorePrelude provides the common ground for other preludes to build on top of, while BasicPrelude exports CorePrelude together with commonly used list functions to provide a drop-in replacement for the standard Prelude.
Users wishing to have an improved Prelude can use BasicPrelude. Developers wishing to create a new prelude should use CorePrelude.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37531665
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |ghc-basic-prelude - An |ghc-basic-prelude - |enhanced basic and core |enhanced basic and core |preludes |preludes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |quantum.analyst@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |quantum.analyst@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- Remove 'An' from Summary. -doc subpackage should be noarch, I think? Also, -doc subpackage doesn't depend on anything and doesn't contain the license.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 1750102-ghc-basic-prelude/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc- basic-prelude [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 4474880 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-basic-prelude-0.7.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm ghc-basic-prelude-devel-0.7.0-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm ghc-basic-prelude-0.7.0-1.fc32.src.rpm ghc-basic-prelude.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> datatype, data types, data-types ghc-basic-prelude.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libHSbasic-prelude-0.7.0-EHf3YbYQ12CEQLsCdqYGy5-ghc8.6.5.so ghc-basic-prelude.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-basic-prelude.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> datatype, data types, data-types 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ghc-basic-prelude.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US datatypes -> datatype, data types, data-types ghc-basic-prelude.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libHSbasic-prelude-0.7.0-EHf3YbYQ12CEQLsCdqYGy5-ghc8.6.5.so stg_* ghc-basic-prelude.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libHSbasic-prelude-0.7.0-EHf3YbYQ12CEQLsCdqYGy5-ghc8.6.5.so newCAF ghc-basic-prelude.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libHSbasic-prelude-0.7.0-EHf3YbYQ12CEQLsCdqYGy5-ghc8.6.5.so ghc-basic-prelude.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 552 warnings.
Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-basic-prelude: /usr/lib64/libHSbasic-prelude-0.7.0-EHf3YbYQ12CEQLsCdqYGy5-ghc8.6.5.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/basic-prelude-0.7.0/basic-prelude-0.7.0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 10755f892548faa956b81b40d1d03ec6e94609fd8ec8e92be09b4453b7ad9379 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 10755f892548faa956b81b40d1d03ec6e94609fd8ec8e92be09b4453b7ad9379
Requires -------- ghc-basic-prelude (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSbase-4.12.0.0-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.5.3-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-1.0.2.0-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit) libHStext-1.2.3.1-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-basic-prelude-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-basic-prelude(x86-64) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.12.0.0) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.8.2) ghc-devel(containers-0.6.0.1) ghc-devel(filepath-1.4.2.1) ghc-devel(hashable-1.2.7.0-CWI8VZuQTAYWIQTQQtqCV) ghc-devel(text-1.2.3.1) ghc-devel(transformers-0.5.6.2) ghc-devel(unordered-containers-0.2.10.0-KQjsr7xKC1WHxfEOZ1c65w) ghc-devel(vector-0.12.0.3-2LEYu9M2i7lERDtz76XG3n)
Provides -------- ghc-basic-prelude: ghc-basic-prelude ghc-basic-prelude(x86-64) libHSbasic-prelude-0.7.0-EHf3YbYQ12CEQLsCdqYGy5-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit)
ghc-basic-prelude-devel: ghc-basic-prelude-devel ghc-basic-prelude-devel(x86-64) ghc-basic-prelude-static ghc-basic-prelude-static(x86-64) ghc-devel(basic-prelude-0.7.0-EHf3YbYQ12CEQLsCdqYGy5)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1750102 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++, Haskell Disabled plugins: Python, Java, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, Perl, PHP, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #2)
Remove 'An' from Summary.
Sure
-doc subpackage should be noarch, I think?
I tested this in Koji now and indeed it seems to work okay - so I will put it into the next cabal-rpm release.
Also, -doc subpackage doesn't depend on anything and doesn't contain the license.
Good catch: will add this to cabal-rpm too.
Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-basic-prelude/ghc-basic-prelude... SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-basic-prelude/ghc-basic-prelude...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39079551
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Elliott Sales de Andrade quantum.analyst@gmail.com --- Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thanks again for the review
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19904
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-basic-prelude
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED Fixed In Version| |ghc-basic-prelude-0.7.0-2.f | |c32
--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19913 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19914 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/19915
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2019-828490534a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-828490534a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-basic-prelude-0.7.0-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-828490534a
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1750102
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2019-12-05 01:39:43
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-basic-prelude-0.7.0-2.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com