https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309209
Bug ID: 2309209 Summary: Review Request: ghc-select-rpms - Select a subset of RPM packages Product: Fedora Version: rawhide URL: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/select-rpms 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-select-rpms/ghc-select-rpms.sp... SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-select-rpms/ghc-select-rpms-0....
Description: A library for selecting a subset of RPM (sub)packages.
Fedora Account System Username: petersen
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309209
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7974539 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309209
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? CC| |lemenkov@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lemenkov@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- I'll review it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309209
Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Peter Lemenkov lemenkov@gmail.com --- A typical Haskell package - it does a lot of things with macros. I don't see any issues so here is my formal
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++/
^^^ False positive I believe.
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development files in -devel subpackage. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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 (MIT). [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 does not contain desktop file (not 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. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: The package is not a rename of another package. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s). [-]: The package does not provide a -debuginfo subpackage. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 571 bytes in 2 files. [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. [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged (0.1.0). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify. [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is not present. [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: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-select-rpms-0.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ghc-select-rpms-devel-0.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ghc-select-rpms-prof-0.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm ghc-select-rpms-0.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm ===================================================================== rpmlint session starts ==================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpb6xp3v36')] checks: 32, packages: 4
ghc-select-rpms-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/select-rpms-0.1.0/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5.a ghc-select-rpms-prof.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/select-rpms-0.1.0/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5_p.a
^^^ This is file for Haskell packages
ghc-select-rpms.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-select-rpms-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation =============================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 18 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.6 s ===============================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 3
ghc-select-rpms.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so /lib64/libm.so.6 ... ghc-select-rpms.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so /lib64/libgmp.so.10 ... ghc-select-rpms.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so newCAF (/usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so) ghc-select-rpms-prof.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/select-rpms-0.1.0/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5_p.a ghc-select-rpms-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/select-rpms-0.1.0/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5.a ghc-select-rpms-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-select-rpms.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1580 errors, 2 warnings, 14 filtered, 1580 badness; has taken 2.8 s
^^^ These thousands of issues are just fine for Haskell packages afaik.
Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-select-rpms: /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/select-rpms-0.1.0/select-rpms-0.1.0.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a6e17234fdfdfa5d25bce5c3f9226276a7c015da1783eed68aa37f6059b0ca14 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6e17234fdfdfa5d25bce5c3f9226276a7c015da1783eed68aa37f6059b0ca14
Requires -------- ghc-select-rpms (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSGlob-0.10.2-KhBMbR5Vodt8DKWzJ50ndn-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSansi-terminal-1.0.2-BAf8I876hPhJFEtshgOsOs-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSansi-terminal-types-0.11.5-EqlSjsBzg08BPCkB2XI47w-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSarray-0.5.6.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.18.2.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSbinary-0.8.9.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.11.5.3-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSclock-0.8.4-3296s51dIjRIlLWyVuI7gw-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHScolour-2.3.6-Dv7015zVt5k10e0N0YtJJm-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.6.7-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.4.8.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSdirectory-1.3.8.5-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSdlist-1.0-7vDlnn0Hdvg35SyXLwMaWr-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSexceptions-0.10.7-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSextra-1.7.16-7qPYtUEmtRSH3WrnonFiW7-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSfilepath-1.4.300.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSghc-bignum-1.3-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSghc-boot-th-9.6.6-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.10.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHShaskeline-0.8.2.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSmtl-2.3.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
libHSoptparse-applicative-0.18.1.0-4mpzPJ7fRrN8xZM2uyySPB-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSpretty-1.1.3.6-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSprettyprinter-1.7.1-CDxAO72IL6lFavjzsDUSDp-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
libHSprettyprinter-ansi-terminal-1.1.3-2aRKmklopxR2DFvJh8mNr2-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSprocess-1.6.19.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSrpm-nvr-0.1.2-2jNBE3rDPwiHJUfDsW8btO-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSsafe-0.3.21-F46Xmb3LoXlCc8daI6vSkg-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSsimple-cmd-0.2.7-J13hOnoZBNDDLH005cOk1E-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSsimple-cmd-args-0.1.8-GCsswHhgzaj8WBOM4trKkS-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.3-3YCDIBYXPc978tHx43draC-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSstm-2.5.1.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHStemplate-haskell-2.20.0.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSterminfo-0.4.1.6-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHStext-2.0.2-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.12.2-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-0.6.1.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-compat-0.7.2-LmnlcpbfHuuAOWEWPuyobH-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libHSunix-2.8.4.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-select-rpms-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-compiler ghc-devel(Glob-0.10.2-KhBMbR5Vodt8DKWzJ50ndn) ghc-devel(base-4.18.2.1) ghc-devel(directory-1.3.8.5) ghc-devel(extra-1.7.16-7qPYtUEmtRSH3WrnonFiW7) ghc-devel(filepath-1.4.300.1) ghc-devel(rpm-nvr-0.1.2-2jNBE3rDPwiHJUfDsW8btO) ghc-devel(safe-0.3.21-F46Xmb3LoXlCc8daI6vSkg) ghc-devel(simple-cmd-0.2.7-J13hOnoZBNDDLH005cOk1E) ghc-devel(simple-cmd-args-0.1.8-GCsswHhgzaj8WBOM4trKkS) ghc-devel(simple-prompt-0.2.3-3YCDIBYXPc978tHx43draC) ghc-select-rpms(x86-64)
ghc-select-rpms-prof (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-prof(Glob-0.10.2-KhBMbR5Vodt8DKWzJ50ndn) ghc-prof(base-4.18.2.1) ghc-prof(directory-1.3.8.5) ghc-prof(extra-1.7.16-7qPYtUEmtRSH3WrnonFiW7) ghc-prof(filepath-1.4.300.1) ghc-prof(rpm-nvr-0.1.2-2jNBE3rDPwiHJUfDsW8btO) ghc-prof(safe-0.3.21-F46Xmb3LoXlCc8daI6vSkg) ghc-prof(simple-cmd-0.2.7-J13hOnoZBNDDLH005cOk1E) ghc-prof(simple-cmd-args-0.1.8-GCsswHhgzaj8WBOM4trKkS) ghc-prof(simple-prompt-0.2.3-3YCDIBYXPc978tHx43draC) ghc-select-rpms-devel(x86-64)
Provides -------- ghc-select-rpms: ghc-select-rpms ghc-select-rpms(x86-64) libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
ghc-select-rpms-devel: ghc-devel(select-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5) ghc-select-rpms-devel ghc-select-rpms-devel(x86-64) ghc-select-rpms-static ghc-select-rpms-static(x86-64)
ghc-select-rpms-prof: ghc-prof(select-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5) ghc-select-rpms-prof ghc-select-rpms-prof(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2309209 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Haskell, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Java, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
This package is
================ === APPROVED === ================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309209
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thank you very much, Peter
I saw you had approved, but I was waiting to do some tweaks to fbrnch before importing. Hoping to do that soon and also to look at any of your remaining open reviews.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309209
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-select-rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309209
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/70522 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/70523
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309209
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-61894e6b8d (fbrnch-1.6-23.fc42, ghc-bodhi-0.1.0-23.fc42, and 3 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-61894e6b8d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2309209
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Last Closed| |2024-12-13 16:52:58
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2024-61894e6b8d (fbrnch-1.6-23.fc42, ghc-bodhi-0.1.0-23.fc42, and 3 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com