https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Bug ID: 2010029 Summary: Review Request: ghc-bytes - Sharing code for serialization between binary and cereal 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-bytes/ghc-bytes.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-bytes/ghc-bytes-0.17.1-1.fc35....
Description: Sharing code for serialization between binary and cereal.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=76624672
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-bytes/ghc-bytes.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-bytes/ghc-bytes-0.17.1-2.fc35....
drop autorelease for review
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79079296
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- This is needed by linear for sdl2.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Tristan Cacqueray tdecacqu@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tdecacqu@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Tristan Cacqueray tdecacqu@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: =======
===== 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". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/2010029-ghc- bytes/licensecheck.txt [x]: 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. [x]: 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 3 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: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-bytes: /usr/lib64/libHSbytes-0.17.1-Lxz18QtabZBAfl3cUMoMnn-ghc8.10.5.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/bytes-0.17.1/bytes-0.17.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3ae9b2f34c87419a81e8dbb01f329a7a99123f87649cda53751ca5b737d2b7e2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ae9b2f34c87419a81e8dbb01f329a7a99123f87649cda53751ca5b737d2b7e2
Requires -------- ghc-bytes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSarray-0.5.4.0-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.14.2.0-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSbinary-0.8.8.0-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSbinary-orphans-1.0.1-7V0pYT6CD04J7X2AvvHwQ-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.10.12.0-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHScereal-0.5.8.1-73BaGCsxIynIkmW1q5AFsw-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.6.4.1-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.4.4.0-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSghc-boot-th-8.10.5-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.6.1-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHShashable-1.3.0.0-AC24voAet8VD7h7fDAkjdM-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-1.0.3.0-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit)
libHSinteger-logarithms-1.0.3.1-JdgTo8TuEi7GJLFkpW7C4m-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSmtl-2.2.2-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSpretty-1.1.3.6-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSprimitive-0.7.1.0-H44eQ1j8hQJ3Kj2SFx0Ivh-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSscientific-0.3.7.0-LDPslsw44qeJsI1zT3N2li-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHStemplate-haskell-2.16.0.0-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHStext-1.2.4.1-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.9.3-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-0.5.6.2-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-compat-0.6.6-8xD7tdhdla21VYsnm1hEvk-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit)
libHSunordered-containers-0.2.14.0-HBBKkH2htsO1rAZUyxA0VG-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSvoid-0.7.3-H5UI39LbzGKEyRG3e9paaj-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-bytes-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-bytes(x86-64) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.14.2.0) ghc-devel(binary-0.8.8.0) ghc-devel(binary-orphans-1.0.1-7V0pYT6CD04J7X2AvvHwQ) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.12.0) ghc-devel(cereal-0.5.8.1-73BaGCsxIynIkmW1q5AFsw) ghc-devel(containers-0.6.4.1) ghc-devel(hashable-1.3.0.0-AC24voAet8VD7h7fDAkjdM) ghc-devel(mtl-2.2.2) ghc-devel(scientific-0.3.7.0-LDPslsw44qeJsI1zT3N2li) ghc-devel(text-1.2.4.1) ghc-devel(time-1.9.3) ghc-devel(transformers-0.5.6.2) ghc-devel(transformers-compat-0.6.6-8xD7tdhdla21VYsnm1hEvk) ghc-devel(unordered-containers-0.2.14.0-HBBKkH2htsO1rAZUyxA0VG) ghc-devel(void-0.7.3-H5UI39LbzGKEyRG3e9paaj)
Provides -------- ghc-bytes: ghc-bytes ghc-bytes(x86-64) libHSbytes-0.17.1-Lxz18QtabZBAfl3cUMoMnn-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit)
ghc-bytes-devel: ghc-bytes-devel ghc-bytes-devel(x86-64) ghc-bytes-static ghc-bytes-static(x86-64) ghc-devel(bytes-0.17.1-Lxz18QtabZBAfl3cUMoMnn)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 2010029 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, C/C++, Haskell, Shell-api Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, PHP, R, Python, Java, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Tristan Cacqueray tdecacqu@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tdecacqu@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review, Tristan
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/43624
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
--- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-bytes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |ghc-bytes-0.17.1-2.fc37 Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-bd52422363 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bd52422363
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-bd52422363 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-bd52422363 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-bd52422363
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-96088aafef has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-96088aafef
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2075108
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2075108 [Bug 2075108] Review Request: ghc-linear - Linear Algebra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-96088aafef has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-96088aafef *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-96088aafef
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-04-21 21:21:42
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-96088aafef has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2010029
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-bd52422363 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org