[Bug 1964096] New: Review Request: ghc-graphviz - Bindings to Graphviz for graph visualization
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964096
Bug ID: 1964096 Summary: Review Request: ghc-graphviz - Bindings to Graphviz for graph visualization 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-graphviz/ghc-graphviz.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-graphviz/ghc-graphviz-2999.20....
Description: This library provides bindings for the Dot language used by the Graphviz (http://graphviz.org/) suite of programs for visualizing graphs, as well as functions to call those programs.
Main features of the graphviz library include:
* Almost complete coverage of all Graphviz attributes and syntax.
* Support for specifying clusters.
* The ability to use a custom node type.
* Functions for running a Graphviz layout tool with all specified output types.
* The ability to not only generate but also parse Dot code with two options: strict and liberal (in terms of ordering of statements).
* Functions to convert FGL graphs and other graph-like data structures to Dot code - including support to group them into clusters - with a high degree of customization by specifying which attributes to use and limited support for the inverse operation.
* Round-trip support for passing an FGL graph through Graphviz to augment node and edge labels with positional information, etc.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=68626385
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964096
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- This unbundles Haskell graphviz from darcs: it is needed by rpmbuild-order now too.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964096
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- Package approved.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 59 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-graphviz/review-ghc- graphviz/licensecheck.txt [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 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. [-]: 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 51200 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 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 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). [?]: 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. [x]: 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 ------- Checking: ghc-graphviz-2999.20.1.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm ghc-graphviz-devel-2999.20.1.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm ghc-graphviz-2999.20.1.0-1.fc35.src.rpm ghc-graphviz.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libHSgraphviz-2999.20.1.0-CshmEKV5f9bsjA1hk9u4n-ghc8.8.4.so ghc-graphviz.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964096
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review, Robert-André
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/34335
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964096
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-graphviz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1964096
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |ghc-graphviz-2999.20.1.0-29 | |.fc35 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2021-06-01 06:39:48
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com