[Bug 1607262] New: Review Request: ghc-explicit-exception - Exceptions which are explicit in the type signature
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
Bug ID: 1607262 Summary: Review Request: ghc-explicit-exception - Exceptions which are explicit in the type signature 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-explicit-exception.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-explicit-exception-0.1.9.2-1.fc28.src....
Description: Synchronous and Asynchronous exceptions which are explicit in the type signature. The first ones are very similar to 'Either' and 'Control.Monad.Error.ErrorT'. The second ones are used for 'System.IO.readFile' and 'System.IO.hGetContents'. This package is a proposal for improved exception handling in Haskell. It strictly separates between handling of exceptional situations (file not found, invalid user input, see http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Exception) and (programming) errors (division by zero, index out of range, see http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Error). Handling of the first one is called "exception handling", whereas handling of errors is better known as "debugging".
For applications see the packages 'midi', 'spreadsheet', 'http-monad'.
Although I'm not happy with the identifier style of the Monad Transformer Library (partially intended for unqualified use) I have tried to adopt it for this library, in order to let Haskell programmers get accustomed easily to it.
See also: 'unexceptionalio'.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=28534899
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
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: "*No copyright* BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 17 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-explicit-exception/review-ghc-explicit- exception/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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 778240 bytes in 26 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. [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. [-]: %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-explicit-exception-0.1.9.2-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm ghc-explicit-exception-devel-0.1.9.2-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm ghc-explicit-exception-0.1.9.2-1.fc29.src.rpm ghc-explicit-exception.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Monad -> Mona, Gonad, Mon ad ghc-explicit-exception.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ErrorT -> Error T, Error, Errors ghc-explicit-exception.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readFile -> read File, read-file, readily ghc-explicit-exception.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hGetContents -> contingents, contents ghc-explicit-exception.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow ghc-explicit-exception.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell -> Haskell ghc-explicit-exception.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskellwiki -> Haskell ghc-explicit-exception.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona ghc-explicit-exception.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unexceptionalio -> unexceptional, unexceptionable, unexceptionably ghc-explicit-exception.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-explicit-exception.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Monad -> Mona, Gonad, Mon ad ghc-explicit-exception.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ErrorT -> Error T, Error, Errors ghc-explicit-exception.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readFile -> read File, read-file, readily ghc-explicit-exception.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hGetContents -> contingents, contents ghc-explicit-exception.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow ghc-explicit-exception.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell -> Haskell ghc-explicit-exception.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskellwiki -> Haskell ghc-explicit-exception.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona ghc-explicit-exception.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unexceptionalio -> unexceptional, unexceptionable, unexceptionably 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 19 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thank you, Robert-André, for the review.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7470
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
--- Comment #4 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-explicit-exception. You may commit to the branch "f28" in about 10 minutes.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-explicit-exception-0.1.9.2-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-c7033d93d5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-explicit-exception-0.1.9.2-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0edc8dffff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-explicit-exception-0.1.9.2-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-c7033d93d5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-explicit-exception-0.1.9.2-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-0edc8dffff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-08-14 17:07:12
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-explicit-exception-0.1.9.2-1.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607262
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-explicit-exception-0.1.9.2-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com