https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951611
Bug ID: 1951611 Summary: Review Request: ghc-protolude - A small prelude 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-protolude/ghc-protolude.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-protolude/ghc-protolude-0.3.0-...
Description: A sensible set of defaults for writing custom Preludes.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=66340977
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951611
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 #1 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", "Expat License". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-protolude/review-ghc- protolude/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. [-]: 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 20480 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 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 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. [-]: 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-protolude-0.3.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm ghc-protolude-devel-0.3.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm ghc-protolude-0.3.0-1.fc35.src.rpm ghc-protolude.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libHSprotolude-0.3.0-BQksNCoSJAeIwnrEUcim6t-ghc8.8.4.so ghc-protolude.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951611
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thank you for the review, Robert-André
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33676
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951611
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-protolude
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951611
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED Fixed In Version| |ghc-protolude-0.3.0-1.fc35
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951611
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33700 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/33701
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951611
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-4594105a4f has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4594105a4f
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951611
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-6ca438a1fb has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6ca438a1fb
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951611
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-4594105a4f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-4594105a4f *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-4594105a4f
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=1951611
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-6ca438a1fb has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-6ca438a1fb *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6ca438a1fb
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=1951611
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2021-05-05 00:53:05
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-6ca438a1fb has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1951611
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-4594105a4f has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com