[Bug 1982387] New: Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - A binding for the OpenGL graphics system
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
Bug ID: 1982387 Summary: Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - A binding for the OpenGL graphics system 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-OpenGL/ghc-OpenGL.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-OpenGL/ghc-OpenGL-3.0.3.0-1.fc...
Description: A Haskell binding for the OpenGL graphics system (GL, version 4.6) and its accompanying utility library (GLU, version 1.3).
OpenGL is the industry's most widely used and supported 2D and 3D graphics application programming interface (API), incorporating a broad set of rendering, texture mapping, special effects, and other powerful visualization functions. For more information about OpenGL and its various extensions, please see http://www.opengl.org/ and http://www.opengl.org/registry/.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71892786
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
Tristan Cacqueray tdecacqu@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tdecacqu@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 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. [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 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 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 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). [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. [?]: 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-OpenGL-3.0.3.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm ghc-OpenGL-devel-3.0.3.0-1.fc36.x86_64.rpm ghc-OpenGL-3.0.3.0-1.fc36.src.rpm ghc-OpenGL.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow ghc-OpenGL.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-OpenGL.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-OpenGL: /usr/lib64/libHSOpenGL-3.0.3.0-IbZzTeOU8DILsHSSITp6Y3-ghc8.10.5.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/OpenGL-3.0.3.0/OpenGL.cabal#/OpenGL-3.0.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 811cf7cf2f325bde04efb021ef9b6a86a3b7383583f4bc6471b7a66c56ae889c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 811cf7cf2f325bde04efb021ef9b6a86a3b7383583f4bc6471b7a66c56ae889c https://hackage.haskell.org/package/OpenGL-3.0.3.0/OpenGL-3.0.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5a05ffc752dfc7dd16818d7b3c7c59a27639e246cdfa1963fa02e3ce247a2e19 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a05ffc752dfc7dd16818d7b3c7c59a27639e246cdfa1963fa02e3ce247a2e19
Requires -------- ghc-OpenGL (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libGL.so.1()(64bit) libGLU.so.1()(64bit) libHSGLURaw-2.0.0.4-9SqZlfW4mA58vluyKqFclc-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSObjectName-1.1.0.1-EKgNKa79iW1AJutQFqiTVZ-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSOpenGLRaw-3.3.4.0-Eqi3GbgWEeA8OR0caxWrHR-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSStateVar-1.2.2-It1hbplVavsB39KpwsXcML-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) 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) libHSbytestring-0.10.12.0-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) libHSfixed-0.3-3JVH1sv7oMg52YIcxBwKR7-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) libHShalf-0.3.1-BRlwexI8A3uBHxv3tEBs7D-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-1.0.3.0-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSpretty-1.1.3.6-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSstm-2.5.0.1-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) libHStransformers-0.5.6.2-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-OpenGL-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-OpenGL(x86-64) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(GLURaw-2.0.0.4-9SqZlfW4mA58vluyKqFclc) ghc-devel(ObjectName-1.1.0.1-EKgNKa79iW1AJutQFqiTVZ) ghc-devel(OpenGLRaw-3.3.4.0-Eqi3GbgWEeA8OR0caxWrHR) ghc-devel(StateVar-1.2.2-It1hbplVavsB39KpwsXcML) ghc-devel(base-4.14.2.0) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.12.0) ghc-devel(containers-0.6.4.1) ghc-devel(text-1.2.4.1) ghc-devel(transformers-0.5.6.2)
Provides -------- ghc-OpenGL: ghc-OpenGL ghc-OpenGL(x86-64) libHSOpenGL-3.0.3.0-IbZzTeOU8DILsHSSITp6Y3-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit)
ghc-OpenGL-devel: ghc-OpenGL-devel ghc-OpenGL-devel(x86-64) ghc-OpenGL-static ghc-OpenGL-static(x86-64) ghc-devel(OpenGL-3.0.3.0-IbZzTeOU8DILsHSSITp6Y3)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1982387 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Haskell, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, Java, R, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
Tristan Cacqueray tdecacqu@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tdecacqu@redhat.com Status|NEW |POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thanks for the review, Tristan!
I opened https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10363
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |ghc-OpenGL-3.0.3.0-1.fc36 Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/37399
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-57f277ce17 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-57f277ce17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- One more https://pagure.io/releng/issue/10372 for unblocking f33/f34.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-57f277ce17 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-2021-57f277ce17 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-57f277ce17
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=1982387
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-fd62d62047 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fd62d62047
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-fd62d62047 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-fd62d62047 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-fd62d62047
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=1982387
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2021-11-14 03:43:37
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-fd62d62047 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-57f277ce17 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=1982387
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-a78a82ac7d has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a78a82ac7d
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1982387
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-a78a82ac7d 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-a78a82ac7d *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-a78a82ac7d
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=1982387
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2021-a78a82ac7d has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com