https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Bug ID: 1197641 Summary: Review Request: ghc-boxes - 2D text pretty-printing library 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-boxes.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org//ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: A pretty-printing library for laying out text in two dimensions, using a simple box model.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- This package built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9117511
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |haskell-devel@lists.fedorap | |roject.org Blocks| |1164120
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1164120 [Bug 1164120] Agda-2.4.2.2 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Ben Boeckel mathstuf@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mathstuf@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mathstuf@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ben Boeckel mathstuf@gmail.com --- Adding CHANGES to %doc would be nice.
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [?]: 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 215040 bytes in 18 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: No rpmlint messages. [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 %doc. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ghc-boxes-devel-0.1.4-1.fc23.x86_64.rpm ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc23.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires -------- ghc-boxes (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(base-4.7.0.2-cb23b5265b6e147094c0cd9ac819acb1) ghc(split-0.2.2-34cfb851cc3784e22bfae7a7bddda9c5) libHSbase-4.7.0.2-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.1.0-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.1.0-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSsplit-0.2.2-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-boxes-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(boxes-0.1.4-d887acf84255fc1f36f5bf4456609a6e) ghc-boxes(x86-64) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.7.0.2-cb23b5265b6e147094c0cd9ac819acb1) ghc-devel(split-0.2.2-34cfb851cc3784e22bfae7a7bddda9c5)
Provides -------- ghc-boxes: ghc(boxes-0.1.4-d887acf84255fc1f36f5bf4456609a6e) ghc-boxes ghc-boxes(x86-64) libHSboxes-0.1.4-ghc7.8.4.so()(64bit)
ghc-boxes-devel: ghc-boxes-devel ghc-boxes-devel(x86-64) ghc-boxes-static ghc-devel(boxes-0.1.4-d887acf84255fc1f36f5bf4456609a6e)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-boxes: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.8.4/boxes-0.1.4/libHSboxes-0.1.4-ghc7.8.4.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/boxes-0.1.4/boxes-0.1.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4e3ee9a88a28ed14a61b2c885b111922f201f56392ff68d350418ff6e98dfdd8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e3ee9a88a28ed14a61b2c885b111922f201f56392ff68d350418ff6e98dfdd8
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bb-tmpfs --bug 1197641 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Haskell, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thanks for reviewing.
Okay good suggestion, I'll add CHANGES.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-boxes Short Description: 2D text pretty-printing Upstream URL: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/boxes Owners: petersen Branches: f22 f21 f20 epel7 InitialCC: haskell-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc22
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc21
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.el7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2015-03-13 13:07:10
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc22 |ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc21
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc21 |ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc20
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197641
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.fc20 |ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.el7
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-boxes-0.1.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla