https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
Bug ID: 1266847 Summary: Review Request: ghc-extra - Library of extra functions Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: petersen@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-extra.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-extra-1.4.2-1.fc22.src.rpm
Description: A library of extra functions for the standard Haskell libraries. Most functions are simple additions, filling out missing functionality. A few functions are available in later versions of GHC, but this package makes them available back to GHC 7.2.
The module "Extra" documents all functions provided by this library. Modules such as "Data.List.Extra" provide extra functions over "Data.List" and also reexport "Data.List". Users are recommended to replace "Data.List" imports with "Data.List.Extra" if they need the extra functionality.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |haskell-devel@lists.fedorap | |roject.org Blocks| |1166415, 1142930
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Scratch: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11250161
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142930 [Bug 1142930] hlint-1.9.21 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1166415 [Bug 1166415] shake-0.15.5 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Currently a subpackage of hlint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Please package the latest version, version 1.6.
- Build fails for me:
Preprocessing test suite 'extra-test' for extra-1.4.2... [1 of 4] Compiling TestUtil ( test/TestUtil.hs, dist/build/extra-test/extra-test-tmp/TestUtil.dyn_o ) test/TestUtil.hs:66:5: error: ‘exhaustive’ is not a (visible) method of class ‘Testable’ test/TestUtil.hs:70:5: error: ‘exhaustive’ is not a (visible) method of class ‘Testab
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thanks Sorry for the delay
Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-extra/ghc-extra.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-extra/ghc-extra-1.6.2-1.fc27.sr...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
--- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Please use a better summary, "Extra functions I use" is quite vague.
- I can't build it in Mock because it requires:
Setup: Encountered missing dependencies: QuickCheck >=2.10
Only version 2.9.2 is available in Rawhide. Fortunately you're also the maintainer of that package, maybe you could bump it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Okay thanks, sorry about that: I thought I had built it locally.
I am downgrading to the version from LTS 9, since that is closer to current Fedora:
Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-extra/ghc-extra.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-extra/ghc-extra-1.5.3-1.fc27.sr...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: ghc-extra - |Review Request: ghc-extra - |Library of extra functions |Extra Haskell functions
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- You should split the doc in a separate subpackage.
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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review /ghc-extra/review-ghc-extra/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]: 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 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. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if 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. [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]: 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: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1320960 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-extra-1.5.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm ghc-extra-devel-1.5.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm ghc-extra-1.5.3-1.fc28.src.rpm ghc-extra.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
--- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thanks for reviewing.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #7)
You should split the doc in a separate subpackage.
:
===== 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 1320960 bytes in /usr/share
Did we discuss this before?
Current Fedora Haskell Packaging doesn't play well with doc subpackaging. I am planning to subpackage docs in a future Fedora release, though
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- Yes we did.
Package approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
--- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thanks a lot, Robert-André
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/3636
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
--- Comment #11 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-extra. You may commit to the branch "f27" in about 10 minutes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
--- Comment #12 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Oops I just realised that extra needs clock (currently also a subpackage of hlint) to build...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |ghc-extra
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1530182
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530182 [Bug 1530182] Review Request: ghc-clock - High-resolution clock functions: monotonic, realtime, cputime
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED Fixed In Version| |ghc-extra-1.5.3-1.fc28
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2018-05-24 03:19:00
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847 Bug 1266847 depends on bug 1530182, which changed state.
Bug 1530182 Summary: Review Request: ghc-clock - High-resolution clock functions: monotonic, realtime, cputime https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1530182
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla