https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1447319
Bug ID: 1447319
Summary: ghc-mwc-random-0.13.6.0 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-mwc-random
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 0.13.6.0
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.13.5.0-1.fc26
URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/mwc-random
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/1112/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1431390
Bug ID: 1431390
Summary: ghc-happstack-server-7.4.6.4 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-happstack-server
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com, relrod(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 7.4.6.4
Current version/release in rawhide: 7.4.6.3-3.fc26
URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/happstack-server
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/1048/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475597
Bug ID: 1475597
Summary: ghc-vector-0.12.0.1 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-vector
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 0.12.0.1
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.11.0.0-3.fc26
URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/vector
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/1033/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444627
Bug ID: 1444627
Summary: ghc-case-insensitive-1.2.0.9 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-case-insensitive
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 1.2.0.9
Current version/release in rawhide: 1.2.0.8-1.fc26
URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/case-insensitive
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/1004/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475596
Bug ID: 1475596
Summary: ghc-threads-0.5.1.5 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-threads
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: relrod(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
relrod(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 0.5.1.5
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.5.1.4-3.fc26
URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/threads
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/1006/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1436181
Bug ID: 1436181
Summary: ghc-io-streams-1.3.6.1 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-io-streams
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com, relrod(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 1.3.6.1
Current version/release in rawhide: 1.3.6.0-1.fc26
URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/io-streams
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/968/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475591
Bug ID: 1475591
Summary: ghc-language-c-0.6.1 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-language-c
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: michel(a)michel-slm.name
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
michel(a)michel-slm.name
Latest upstream release: 0.6.1
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.5.0-3.fc26
URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/language-c
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/1041/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498698
Bug ID: 1498698
Summary: Unbundle subpackages
Product: Fedora
Version: 26
Component: ghc-uuid
Assignee: mathstuf(a)gmail.com
Reporter: quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
mathstuf(a)gmail.com
Tracking for unbundling subpackages. I don't believe any versions were bumped,
so maybe nothing else needs to be rebuilt after this one.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498693
Bug ID: 1498693
Summary: Unbundle ghc-StateVar
Product: Fedora
Version: 26
Component: ghc-contravariant
Assignee: relrod(a)redhat.com
Reporter: quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com, relrod(a)redhat.com
Tracker for unbundling of subpackages in ghc-contravariant.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485087
Bug ID: 1485087
Summary: haskell-platform-8.2.1 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: haskell-platform
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 8.2.1
Current version/release in rawhide: 3.2.4.0-8.fc27
URL: http://www.haskell.org/platform/linux.html
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/1300/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1481473
Bug ID: 1481473
Summary: ghc-ltk-0.16.1.0 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-ltk
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 0.16.1.0
Current version/release in rawhide: 0.15.0.5-6.fc27
URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/ltk
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/924/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498703
Bug ID: 1498703
Summary: Unbundle subpackages
Product: Fedora
Version: 26
Component: cabal-install
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com
Tracker for unbundling subpackages of cabal-install.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1190127
Bug ID: 1190127
Summary: FTBFS with system bibutils lib under ghc78
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-hs-bibutils
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: petersen(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
Somehow under ghc-7.8 the system bibutils library is not found
(also with "pkgconfig-depends: bibutils").
So temporarily hs-bibutils is being built with the copy library.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=S1oY9TAOfp&a=cc_unsubscribe
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1413338
Bug ID: 1413338
Summary: xmonad session doesn't support GNOME keyring
Product: Fedora
Version: 25
Component: xmonad
Assignee: mathstuf(a)gmail.com
Reporter: simon.guest(a)tesujimath.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
mathstuf(a)gmail.com, petersen(a)redhat.com
Description of problem:
No support for GNOME keyring, which would need to be in xmonad-start script.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
0.12-2.fc25
How reproducible:
Login using the xmonad session from xmonad-basic package. Observe that e.g.
ssh keys are not cached.
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Login with xmonad session from gdm
2. ssh <somewhere>
Actual results:
have to type ssh passphrase, aarggh! :-)
Expected results:
ssh passphrase is available in GNOME keyring via the GNOME keyring daemon
Additional info:
I currently have to use a user script (i.e. ~/.xsession) to do this, rather
than the xmonad session from xmonad-basic package. It would be better if
/usr/bin/xmonad-start contained the following lines (given that Fedora is a
GNOME-based distro, so GNOME based solutions such as keyring are preferable to
e.g. pam_ssh (which is a bit troublesome, actually)):
# for GNOME keyring, see
https://blog.san-ss.com.ar/2011/03/using-gnome-keyring-in-xmonad
eval $(gnome-keyring-daemon --start)
export GNOME_KEYRING_SOCKET
export GNOME_KEYRING_PID
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375825
Bug ID: 1375825
Summary: ghc-webkit must not depend on webkitgtk
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-webkit
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: mcatanzaro(a)gnome.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com
Blocks: 1375784 (webkit1-removal)
The webkitgtk package will be removed from rawhide after Fedora 26 is branched
due to the high number of unfixed security vulnerabilities. You must remove
this dependency or your package will not be present in Fedora 27.
Please refer to [1] for a FAQ on this matter and be advised that for some
packages this may require a substantial amount of work.
Note: if ghc-webkit is a bindings package specifically intended to provide
WebKit1 or GTK+ 2 bindings, then it can safely be retired.
[1]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org…
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375784
[Bug 1375784] Port applications to WebKit2
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1507505
Bug ID: 1507505
Summary: ShelLCheck 0.4.5 does not honor file scope "shellcheck
disable=SC2181"
Product: Fedora
Version: 26
Component: ShellCheck
Assignee: dridi.boukelmoune(a)gmail.com
Reporter: noloader(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: dridi.boukelmoune(a)gmail.com, greg.hellings(a)gmail.com,
haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com
I'm working on Fedora 26 x86_64 (fully patched). I have ShellCheck 0.4.5
installed from the Fedora repos.
Checking a shell script with SC2181 disabled still produces SC2181 warnings:
git clone https://github.com/weidai11/cryptopp.git
shellcheck cryptest.sh | grep -i -c SC2181
68
To disable the warning, the following was added after the shebang and before
any commands:
# Keep the noise down
# shellcheck disable=SC2181
The same exercise on Ubuntu 17 with ShellCheck 0.4.4 does not witness the
problem. Others on Stack Overflow cannot reproduce the problem either. Also see
https://stackoverflow.com/q/47014776/608639 .
**********
$ yum info shellcheck
Installed Packages
Name : ShellCheck
Version : 0.4.5
Release : 3.fc26
Arch : x86_64
Size : 6.0 M
Source : ShellCheck-0.4.5-3.fc26.src.rpm
Repo : @System
From repo : fedora
Summary : Shell script analysis tool
URL : https://github.com/koalaman/shellcheck
License : GPLv3+
Description : The goals of ShellCheck are:
:
: * To point out and clarify typical beginner's syntax issues,
: that causes a shell to give cryptic error messages.
:
: * To point out and clarify typical intermediate level semantic
: problems, that causes a shell to behave strangely and
: counter-intuitively.
:
: * To point out subtle caveats, corner cases and pitfalls, that
: may cause an advanced user's otherwise working script to fail
: under future circumstances.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1489153
Bug ID: 1489153
Summary: Unbundle ghc-memory and ghc-cryptonite
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-cryptohash
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com
ghc-cryptohash is currently bundling ghc-memory and ghc-crytonite. A separate
ghc-memory is already built for Rawhide and a separate ghc-cryptonite will be
available as soon as the SCM clears. I would also like to make these available
on Fedora 27 and 26, but it will be a while before that happens.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
0.11.9-3.fc27
0.11.9-1.fc26
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502200
--- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
> Well the right thing to do first is probably Provide: ghc-*-doc
in all devel packages and then BR: ghc-*-doc in addition to
ghc-*-devel deps. Then we can consider moving them to
a separate package more easily.
I don't understand why you are complicating this matter, why do you want to
apply it to *all* ghc packages? It just applies to ones with large doc, no need
to add a BR either, the user will choose to install the doc subpackage or not.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925993
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Whiteboard|notready |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #13 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> ---
Looks good to me.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502200
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
The other downside to introducing this is we basically have to fork
all the spec one time, since backporting this to current releases
will be too much work, but okay it is just a one-time thing so
I guess we can live with it. Anyway should this discussion to
that bug or upstream...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502200
--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
Well the right thing to do first is probably Provide: ghc-*-doc
in all devel packages and then BR: ghc-*-doc in addition to
ghc-*-devel deps. Then we can consider moving them to
a separate package more easily.
See also bug 1149850
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502200
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
I appreciate > 4MB is significant - on the other hand
the devel package footprint is about 55MB, so it is not that bad.
I prefer not to subpackage haddocks in Fedora for now
until we have good process in place to handle that.
Another alternative could even be not to ship them
though I think they are nice to have for offline usage.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925993
--- Comment #11 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> ---
I guess I don't really mind either way, the bigger(ish) problem is the package
just became outdated.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925993
--- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
Thanks for reviewing
(In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #9)
> - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 2273280 bytes in 58 files.
Yes, I can subpackage, but the problem is we currently don't
really support doc subpackaging in the current Fedora Haskell
packaging and macros etc.
ie we don't BR doc subpackages automatically and
we would have to remember to add BR's for them by hand.
Otherwise haddock documentation doesn't properly cross-reference.
My feeling is it should be done all or nothing: maybe we should do all!
But that is should be done when moving to ghc-8.2 say.
So personally I would prefer to waive this, though I acknowledge
that 2MB is relatively largely: I am not sure how big the package is.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925993
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #9 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> ---
Oops, sorry I missed this earlier. Unfortunately, it's one version out of date
now.
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 2273280 bytes in 58 files.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
===== 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 70 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
review/925993-ghc-yesod-core/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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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:
[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.
[!]: 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.
[?]: 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:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package
is arched.
Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2334720 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-yesod-core-1.4.36-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-yesod-core-devel-1.4.36-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-yesod-core-1.4.36-1.fc28.src.rpm
ghc-yesod-core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
ghc-yesod-core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
ghc-yesod-core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stackage ->
stack age, stack-age, backstage
ghc-yesod-core.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-yesod-core.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
ghc-yesod-core.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
ghc-yesod-core.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stackage -> stack
age, stack-age, backstage
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
ghc-yesod-core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP
ghc-yesod-core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow
ghc-yesod-core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stackage ->
stack age, stack-age, backstage
ghc-yesod-core.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires
--------
ghc-yesod-core-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
ghc-compiler
ghc-devel(aeson-1.0.2.1-727tGRvxuFPI4K1AyXoIrt)
ghc-devel(auto-update-0.1.4-EmUvNdmhEju51bHrtaEMpz)
ghc-devel(base-4.9.1.0)
ghc-devel(blaze-builder-0.4.0.2-Chs7nQ4Qyy3Dg6EW0im6Kk)
ghc-devel(blaze-html-0.8.1.3-4GC9ZrWsvleFkiwXhsHB3o)
ghc-devel(blaze-markup-0.7.1.1-BiS8Ue09EMkGrAxkHLxlgn)
ghc-devel(byteable-0.1.1-2lU1pexQSLj1KbNO17UifQ)
ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.8.1)
ghc-devel(case-insensitive-1.2.0.8-1Ks4sMDdgOS2sugdUOoG2m)
ghc-devel(cereal-0.5.4.0-BsAGxfp8yAs3CiRo2E875e)
ghc-devel(clientsession-0.9.1.2-73gAXFmphElGJjwPvnTFrw)
ghc-devel(conduit-1.2.9-KyEH1gT2SFlFXLffDx2XOT)
ghc-devel(conduit-extra-1.1.15-E618f3Ee8ucAc6qnMdY0db)
ghc-devel(containers-0.5.7.1)
ghc-devel(cookie-0.4.2.1-tr17k2t0N857PhKWvBf07)
ghc-devel(data-default-0.7.1.1-7EGYJX2YWqWJRbPFUHNoCr)
ghc-devel(deepseq-1.4.2.0)
ghc-devel(deepseq-generics-0.2.0.0-IjS8Jfo7YCzLKpV8N96gbz)
ghc-devel(directory-1.3.0.0)
ghc-devel(exceptions-0.8.3-ADEDRATtUrMK1JW4zMQ9U)
ghc-devel(fast-logger-2.4.10-7pyUB3yOtP8HXEahkbkrds)
ghc-devel(http-types-0.9.1-8UHFRKjjMv4ECejpDfDj8j)
ghc-devel(lifted-base-0.2.3.10-BoEavBFIcriDza63doCjS2)
ghc-devel(monad-control-1.0.1.0-LQwQ0Hi5p0oAccTfTzbfD5)
ghc-devel(monad-logger-0.3.20.2-IR76dfKxbf7DzcklGZVa9y)
ghc-devel(mtl-2.2.1-BLKBelFsPB3BoFeSWSOYj6)
ghc-devel(mwc-random-0.13.5.0-Dp3Ri46ZxJuCFZWIowNqha)
ghc-devel(old-locale-1.0.0.7-KGBP1BSKxH5GCm0LnZP04j)
ghc-devel(parsec-3.1.11-8RyPB3SGixcIZrsPWwkXoj)
ghc-devel(path-pieces-0.2.1-IRpJTFkhTfh6f4ss6nLJOw)
ghc-devel(primitive-0.6.1.0-6AbSTw9JXz141LE5p6LGH)
ghc-devel(random-1.1-9tceXaeYIMZ4JrKq20Egog)
ghc-devel(resourcet-1.1.9-Ej57FoSD8NQLck5u9CwWz8)
ghc-devel(safe-0.3.14-GsbXn9D9F3BDazVNcErzdQ)
ghc-devel(semigroups-0.18.2-GvTCUro9Hym1wGKOLNRfUA)
ghc-devel(shakespeare-2.0.12.1-24fNuDY9ewh4xOZt5Locij)
ghc-devel(template-haskell-2.11.1.0)
ghc-devel(text-1.2.2.1-FwvWBfkNJh1I1NMMegz0uY)
ghc-devel(time-1.6.0.1)
ghc-devel(transformers-0.5.2.0)
ghc-devel(transformers-base-0.4.4-GKSs0LKukAL8ymq2naFmrH)
ghc-devel(unix-compat-0.4.3.1-Ausmw6d7KIwA7sl52mzqxC)
ghc-devel(unordered-containers-0.2.7.2-CCGHIBvU8ua1YYN1Bs8HVt)
ghc-devel(vector-0.11.0.0-LMwQhhnXj8U3T5Bm1JFxG)
ghc-devel(wai-3.2.1.1-Lx293U3FyLnDNnL1Yr1RVq)
ghc-devel(wai-extra-3.0.19.1-1WSFVUQk04xJnkPrsoWWwJ)
ghc-devel(wai-logger-2.3.0-FOUe7BsfIlX5fHZzP4rGKX)
ghc-devel(warp-3.2.13-UD61q2TezUKDvREXleNts)
ghc-devel(word8-0.1.2-9WDPGCTpW7JJnsiAQavtd1)
ghc-yesod-core(x86-64)
ghc-yesod-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libHSaeson-1.0.2.1-727tGRvxuFPI4K1AyXoIrt-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSansi-terminal-0.6.2.3-4HPxin1iv6RAndS8lH3nzo-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSappar-0.1.4-DGWHHt2WRn9FI49prcwO9-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSarray-0.5.1.1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSasync-2.1.1-4n6HEMPJR2eJK0JpvCfuPK-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSattoparsec-0.13.1.0-G3BhdDx0nS3HUOq0M94zE6-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSauto-update-0.1.4-EmUvNdmhEju51bHrtaEMpz-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSbase-4.9.1.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSbase-compat-0.9.1-B9geVZFtCvE8ERS7UcvkRz-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSbase64-bytestring-1.0.0.1-4O9TExPPz6eI82Yj7L4SIj-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSbinary-0.8.3.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSblaze-builder-0.4.0.2-Chs7nQ4Qyy3Dg6EW0im6Kk-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSblaze-html-0.8.1.3-4GC9ZrWsvleFkiwXhsHB3o-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSblaze-markup-0.7.1.1-BiS8Ue09EMkGrAxkHLxlgn-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSbyteable-0.1.1-2lU1pexQSLj1KbNO17UifQ-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSbyteorder-1.0.4-9NlNHkBVdo7F1prFVKrkcH-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSbytestring-0.10.8.1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHScase-insensitive-1.2.0.8-1Ks4sMDdgOS2sugdUOoG2m-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHScereal-0.5.4.0-BsAGxfp8yAs3CiRo2E875e-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHScipher-aes-0.2.11-58pv1o4yiCkBrbdAweNPRA-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSclientsession-0.9.1.2-73gAXFmphElGJjwPvnTFrw-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSconduit-1.2.9-KyEH1gT2SFlFXLffDx2XOT-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSconduit-extra-1.1.15-E618f3Ee8ucAc6qnMdY0db-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHScontainers-0.5.7.1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHScookie-0.4.2.1-tr17k2t0N857PhKWvBf07-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHScprng-aes-0.6.1-Iqhpbh6qSYuLd90MapLOSX-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHScrypto-api-0.13.2-IETueZuD8kB6D6D3e0Qo1q-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHScrypto-cipher-types-0.0.9-CAb7rIxButPEeZxdFJZmUX-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHScrypto-random-0.0.9-EL5qpuwNGji3iwO33JR6eS-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSdata-default-0.7.1.1-7EGYJX2YWqWJRbPFUHNoCr-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSdata-default-class-0.1.2.0-GsXqKN6o1X9jr0fF5qCVD-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSdata-default-instances-containers-0.0.1-bob6IQGdJq92c061H46zK-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSdata-default-instances-dlist-0.0.1-FKnZBeovJMk4M89wQxDhjl-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSdata-default-instances-old-locale-0.0.1-9zaGDEmgOixKkmLylWdN5l-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSdeepseq-1.4.2.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSdeepseq-generics-0.2.0.0-IjS8Jfo7YCzLKpV8N96gbz-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSdirectory-1.3.0.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSdlist-0.8.0.2-6Wnps4GD7EFnRucVzXIFD-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSeasy-file-0.2.1-rguMBNaECxLikt4CCDx0D-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSentropy-0.3.7-GVoReSVE1cZ4Y1pKgzhBYO-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSexceptions-0.8.3-ADEDRATtUrMK1JW4zMQ9U-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSfast-logger-2.4.10-7pyUB3yOtP8HXEahkbkrds-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSfilepath-1.4.1.1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSfoundation-0.0.13-G4GHWkMwmXnF7HKMtT8vGa-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSghc-boot-th-8.0.2-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSghc-prim-0.5.0.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHShashable-1.2.5.0-3jyU6ITgVDsZjJvM61wsx-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHShttp-date-0.0.6.1-3GdRclsSolfJcDf3N1R5w1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHShttp-types-0.9.1-8UHFRKjjMv4ECejpDfDj8j-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHShttp2-1.6.3-JjqAKXwB0vD6XA3txNlcjl-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSinteger-gmp-1.0.0.1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSinteger-logarithms-1.0.1-IEHCuEd5sG4JjSjlx7m5JF-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSiproute-1.7.1-4HULutk0xITKNjI1pwYrD4-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSlifted-base-0.2.3.10-BoEavBFIcriDza63doCjS2-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSmemory-0.14.6-Aar7hKewN999MXzU9kvt2a-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSmmorph-1.0.9-5bASEvmIkr5CpdAYXwPsn0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSmonad-control-1.0.1.0-LQwQ0Hi5p0oAccTfTzbfD5-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSmonad-logger-0.3.20.2-IR76dfKxbf7DzcklGZVa9y-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSmonad-loops-0.4.3-ERCN4ZKCeeS5SRhwqXsLBP-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSmtl-2.2.1-BLKBelFsPB3BoFeSWSOYj6-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSmwc-random-0.13.5.0-Dp3Ri46ZxJuCFZWIowNqha-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSnetwork-2.6.3.1-ABFtZSq90Z9BfMXNiqgBoe-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSold-locale-1.0.0.7-KGBP1BSKxH5GCm0LnZP04j-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSold-time-1.1.0.3-KWRsMSdY26c2L27Y9n9cyq-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSparsec-3.1.11-8RyPB3SGixcIZrsPWwkXoj-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSpath-pieces-0.2.1-IRpJTFkhTfh6f4ss6nLJOw-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSpretty-1.1.3.3-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSprimitive-0.6.1.0-6AbSTw9JXz141LE5p6LGH-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSprocess-1.4.3.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSpsqueues-0.2.4.0-4Hzq0Q7r3u0F6sl6wrvel7-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSrandom-1.1-9tceXaeYIMZ4JrKq20Egog-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSresourcet-1.1.9-Ej57FoSD8NQLck5u9CwWz8-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSsafe-0.3.14-GsbXn9D9F3BDazVNcErzdQ-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSscientific-0.3.4.10-DA9ONxqejsGCq5hXtyaVFh-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSsecuremem-0.1.9-9BtpMES6VHn7a7AVmquh53-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSsemigroups-0.18.2-GvTCUro9Hym1wGKOLNRfUA-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSsetenv-0.1.1.3-8dEhk6JWvlmCmVyBammSpu-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSshakespeare-2.0.12.1-24fNuDY9ewh4xOZt5Locij-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSsimple-sendfile-0.2.25-JJ9zm1wZxYIARxlVa3oQgs-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSskein-1.0.9.4-1r9hT02ZzU5HeQ9SvXvQV-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSstm-2.4.4.1-JQn4hNPyYjP5m9AcbI88Ve-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSstm-chans-3.0.0.4-JX6Y7GVvdkg3BduVhEnPWu-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSstreaming-commons-0.1.17-I2SeDNkrU8s6ejKTKxBI5F-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSstringsearch-0.3.6.6-2soGORichTR6reHVhDqKip-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHStagged-0.8.5-1mTloBSoUxv8dqUr8XBGBt-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHStemplate-haskell-2.11.1.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHStext-1.2.2.1-FwvWBfkNJh1I1NMMegz0uY-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHStime-1.6.0.1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHStime-locale-compat-0.1.1.3-3NWht2bntyvDGDNXWNkT1S-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHStransformers-0.5.2.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHStransformers-base-0.4.4-GKSs0LKukAL8ymq2naFmrH-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHStransformers-compat-0.5.1.4-IuFogs8HAVUJBWVNMhtssu-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSunix-2.7.2.1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSunix-compat-0.4.3.1-Ausmw6d7KIwA7sl52mzqxC-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSunix-time-0.3.7-EhnEKT4D7hJajV74Sk5BE-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSunordered-containers-0.2.7.2-CCGHIBvU8ua1YYN1Bs8HVt-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSvault-0.3.0.6-1pYzlyo9GuAJ8c8GzUX62f-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSvector-0.11.0.0-LMwQhhnXj8U3T5Bm1JFxG-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSvoid-0.7.1-LqmDeLUOUcG8WFzSs4VdFc-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSwai-3.2.1.1-Lx293U3FyLnDNnL1Yr1RVq-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSwai-extra-3.0.19.1-1WSFVUQk04xJnkPrsoWWwJ-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSwai-logger-2.3.0-FOUe7BsfIlX5fHZzP4rGKX-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSwarp-3.2.13-UD61q2TezUKDvREXleNts-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSword8-0.1.2-9WDPGCTpW7JJnsiAQavtd1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSzlib-0.6.1.2-7negTfm2ujt1gW4wr40MUp-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
libutil.so.1()(64bit)
libz.so.1()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
ghc-yesod-core-devel:
ghc-devel(yesod-core-1.4.36-2JjZQF4XD3ZCZ6DK9iQYJx)
ghc-yesod-core-devel
ghc-yesod-core-devel(x86-64)
ghc-yesod-core-static
ghc-yesod-core:
ghc-yesod-core
ghc-yesod-core(x86-64)
libHSyesod-core-1.4.36-2JjZQF4XD3ZCZ6DK9iQYJx-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ghc-yesod-core:
/usr/lib64/ghc-8.0.2/yesod-core-1.4.36-2JjZQF4XD3ZCZ6DK9iQYJx/libHSyesod-core-1.4.36-2JjZQF4XD3ZCZ6DK9iQYJx-ghc8.0.2.so
Source checksums
----------------
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/yesod-core-1.4.36/yesod-core-1.4.36.tar…
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
39baca6e963d09d26473d43255488234ccff6c47b8c464c4636ccea731be505e
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
39baca6e963d09d26473d43255488234ccff6c47b8c464c4636ccea731be505e
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 925993
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Haskell, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491632
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ghc-hxt-charproperties-9.2.0.1-1.fc26 has been pushed to the Fedora 26 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198196
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ghc-auto-update-0.1.4-8.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-2017-7d706c45cf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055838
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ghc-time-compat-0.1.0.3-6.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-2017-f3d5998600
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198196
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed In Version|ghc-auto-update-0.1.4-1.fc2 |ghc-auto-update-0.1.4-8.fc2
|8 |8
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055838
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198196
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed In Version| |ghc-auto-update-0.1.4-1.fc2
| |8
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198196
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498410
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ghc-doctemplates-0.1.0.2-4.fc27, ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema-9.2.0.3-2.fc27,
ghc-hxt-unicode-9.0.2.4-1.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-2017-a720501bc4
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498400
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ghc-doctemplates-0.1.0.2-4.fc27, ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema-9.2.0.3-2.fc27,
ghc-hxt-unicode-9.0.2.4-1.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-2017-a720501bc4
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426896
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
darcs-2.12.5-11.fc27, ghc-crypto-cipher-types-0.0.9-13.fc27,
ghc-crypto-random-0.0.9-6.fc27, ghc-cryptohash-0.11.9-5.fc27,
ghc-cryptonite-0.24-2.fc27, ghc-file-embed-0.0.10-5.fc27,
ghc-hakyll-4.9.7.0-4.fc27, ghc-securemem-0.1.9-4.fc27, hledger-1.2-5.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-2017-36682cafae
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1460534
Bug ID: 1460534
Summary: ghc-hakyll-4.9.7.0 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-hakyll
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
mathstuf(a)gmail.com, petersen(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 4.9.7.0
Current version/release in rawhide: 4.9.5.1-1.fc26
URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hakyll
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/985/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1442548
Bug ID: 1442548
Summary: ghc-haddock-library-1.4.3 is available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-haddock-library
Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
petersen(a)redhat.com, relrod(a)redhat.com
Latest upstream release: 1.4.3
Current version/release in rawhide: 1.4.2-1.fc26
URL: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/haddock-library
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy
More information about the service that created this bug can be found at:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring
Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging
changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your
responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still
correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added
upstream.
Based on the information from anitya:
https://release-monitoring.org/project/6433/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1475607
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whiteboard| |semigroups-0.18.3:ok
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
fhbz: No missing dependencies for semigroups-0.18.3
according to cblrpm missingdeps
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1442551
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whiteboard| |vector-binary-instances-0.2
| |.3.5:ok
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
fhbz: No missing dependencies for vector-binary-instances-0.2.3.5
according to cblrpm missingdeps
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502200
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
You should split the doc in a subpackage:
- Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 4659200 bytes in 256 files.
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198196
--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
Thanks a lot, Elliot
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426896
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426896
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
darcs-2.12.5-11.fc27 ghc-crypto-cipher-types-0.0.9-13.fc27
ghc-crypto-random-0.0.9-6.fc27 ghc-cryptohash-0.11.9-5.fc27
ghc-cryptonite-0.24-2.fc27 ghc-file-embed-0.0.10-5.fc27
ghc-hakyll-4.9.7.0-4.fc27 ghc-securemem-0.1.9-4.fc27 hledger-1.2-5.fc27 has
been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-36682cafae
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498410
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498400
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502200
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
Needed for skylighting for current pandoc
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502200
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |haskell-devel(a)lists.fedorap
| |roject.org
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498410
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1502200
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502200
[Bug 1502200] Review Request: ghc-hxt - A collection of tools for
processing XML with Haskell
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498400
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1502200
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502200
[Bug 1502200] Review Request: ghc-hxt - A collection of tools for
processing XML with Haskell
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491632
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1502200
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502200
[Bug 1502200] Review Request: ghc-hxt - A collection of tools for
processing XML with Haskell
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198196
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Whiteboard|AwaitingSubmitter |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> ---
Package is 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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
1198196-ghc-auto-update/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.
[?]: 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 122880 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: 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]: 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]: 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:
[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.
[?]: 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-auto-update-0.1.4-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-auto-update-devel-0.1.4-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-auto-update-0.1.4-1.fc28.src.rpm
ghc-auto-update.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getCurrentTime
-> undercurrent
ghc-auto-update.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pessimization
-> passivization, optimization, minimization
ghc-auto-update.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-auto-update.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getCurrentTime ->
undercurrent
ghc-auto-update.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pessimization ->
passivization, optimization, minimization
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
ghc-auto-update.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US getCurrentTime
-> undercurrent
ghc-auto-update.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pessimization
-> passivization, optimization, minimization
ghc-auto-update.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Requires
--------
ghc-auto-update (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libHSbase-4.9.1.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSghc-prim-0.5.0.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSinteger-gmp-1.0.0.1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-auto-update-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
ghc-auto-update(x86-64)
ghc-compiler
ghc-devel(base-4.9.1.0)
Provides
--------
ghc-auto-update:
ghc-auto-update
ghc-auto-update(x86-64)
libHSauto-update-0.1.4-EmUvNdmhEju51bHrtaEMpz-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
ghc-auto-update-devel:
ghc-auto-update-devel
ghc-auto-update-devel(x86-64)
ghc-auto-update-static
ghc-devel(auto-update-0.1.4-EmUvNdmhEju51bHrtaEMpz)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ghc-auto-update:
/usr/lib64/ghc-8.0.2/auto-update-0.1.4-EmUvNdmhEju51bHrtaEMpz/libHSauto-update-0.1.4-EmUvNdmhEju51bHrtaEMpz-ghc8.0.2.so
Source checksums
----------------
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/auto-update-0.1.4/auto-update-0.1.4.tar…
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
5e96c151024e8bcaf4eaa932e16995872b2017f46124b967e155744d9580b425
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
5e96c151024e8bcaf4eaa932e16995872b2017f46124b967e155744d9580b425
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1198196
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Haskell, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055838
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Whiteboard|BuildFails |
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #6 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> ---
Approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426896
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
darcs-2.12.5-10.fc27, ghc-crypto-cipher-types-0.0.9-13.fc27,
ghc-crypto-random-0.0.9-6.fc27, ghc-cryptohash-0.11.9-5.fc27,
ghc-cryptonite-0.24-2.fc27, ghc-file-embed-0.0.10-5.fc27,
ghc-hakyll-4.9.7.0-4.fc27, ghc-securemem-0.1.9-4.fc27, hledger-1.2-5.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-2017-36682cafae
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426896
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426896
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
darcs-2.12.5-10.fc27 ghc-crypto-cipher-types-0.0.9-13.fc27
ghc-crypto-random-0.0.9-6.fc27 ghc-cryptohash-0.11.9-5.fc27
ghc-cryptonite-0.24-2.fc27 ghc-file-embed-0.0.10-5.fc27
ghc-hakyll-4.9.7.0-4.fc27 ghc-securemem-0.1.9-4.fc27 hledger-1.2-5.fc27 has
been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-36682cafae
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630276
Bug 630276 depends on bug 1485495, which changed state.
Bug 1485495 Summary: Review Request: ghc-crypto-random - Simple cryptographic random related types
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1485495
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|CLOSED |ON_QA
Resolution|ERRATA |---
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426896
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
darcs-2.12.5-9.fc27, ghc-crypto-cipher-types-0.0.9-13.fc27,
ghc-crypto-random-0.0.9-6.fc27, ghc-cryptohash-0.11.9-5.fc27,
ghc-cryptonite-0.24-2.fc27, ghc-file-embed-0.0.10-5.fc27,
ghc-hakyll-4.9.7.0-4.fc27, ghc-securemem-0.1.9-4.fc27, hledger-1.2-5.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-2017-36682cafae
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426896
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426896
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
darcs-2.12.5-9.fc27 ghc-crypto-cipher-types-0.0.9-13.fc27
ghc-crypto-random-0.0.9-6.fc27 ghc-cryptohash-0.11.9-5.fc27
ghc-cryptonite-0.24-2.fc27 ghc-file-embed-0.0.10-5.fc27
ghc-hakyll-4.9.7.0-4.fc27 ghc-securemem-0.1.9-4.fc27 hledger-1.2-5.fc27 has
been submitted as an update to Fedora 27.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2017-36682cafae
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055838
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198196
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com
Whiteboard| |AwaitingSubmitter
Flags| |fedora-review?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055838
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Whiteboard| |BuildFails
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055838
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> ---
> %doc LICENSE
Should be changed to %license now, or it doesn't build. Probably want to
regenerate with latest template as well.
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 (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
1055838-ghc-time-compat/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
[-]: 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 61440 bytes in 12 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]: 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]: 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.
[?]: 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.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-time-compat-0.1.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-time-compat-devel-0.1.0.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-time-compat-0.1.0.3-1.fc28.src.rpm
ghc-time-compat.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
ghc-time-compat.x86_64: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires
--------
ghc-time-compat-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
ghc-compiler
ghc-devel(base-4.9.1.0)
ghc-devel(old-time-1.1.0.3-KWRsMSdY26c2L27Y9n9cyq)
ghc-devel(time-1.6.0.1)
ghc-time-compat(x86-64)
ghc-time-compat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
libHSarray-0.5.1.1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSbase-4.9.1.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSdeepseq-1.4.2.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSghc-prim-0.5.0.0-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSinteger-gmp-1.0.0.1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSold-locale-1.0.0.7-KGBP1BSKxH5GCm0LnZP04j-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHSold-time-1.1.0.3-KWRsMSdY26c2L27Y9n9cyq-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libHStime-1.6.0.1-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
ghc-time-compat-devel:
ghc-devel(time-compat-0.1.0.3-BK1RqWOlKAr4qLDN3xUR94)
ghc-time-compat-devel
ghc-time-compat-devel(x86-64)
ghc-time-compat-static
ghc-time-compat:
ghc-time-compat
ghc-time-compat(x86-64)
libHStime-compat-0.1.0.3-BK1RqWOlKAr4qLDN3xUR94-ghc8.0.2.so()(64bit)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ghc-time-compat:
/usr/lib64/ghc-8.0.2/time-compat-0.1.0.3-BK1RqWOlKAr4qLDN3xUR94/libHStime-compat-0.1.0.3-BK1RqWOlKAr4qLDN3xUR94-ghc8.0.2.so
Source checksums
----------------
http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/time-compat/0.1.0.3/time-compat…
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
590711214510c0d2d09780c7fe3b21748bc4802e9053f78ccd6658e951fe0f7f
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
590711214510c0d2d09780c7fe3b21748bc4802e9053f78ccd6658e951fe0f7f
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n
ghc-time-compat-0.1.0.3-1.fc26.src.rpm --rpm-spec
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Haskell, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198196
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1498699
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498699
[Bug 1498699] Unbundle subpackages
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=925993
--- Comment #7 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> ---
clientsession is now available in Rawhide if you can update this.
This review is for an outdated version at the moment.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1198196
Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst(a)gmail.com> ---
This package is outdated. Please update to the latest release. Also, the
description should be updated with something reasonable.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498410
Bug 1498410 depends on bug 1491632, which changed state.
Bug 1491632 Summary: Review Request: ghc-hxt-charproperties - Character properties and classes for XML and Unicode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491632
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498400
Bug 1498400 depends on bug 1491632, which changed state.
Bug 1491632 Summary: Review Request: ghc-hxt-charproperties - Character properties and classes for XML and Unicode
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491632
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491632
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ON_QA |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed| |2017-10-04 10:20:04
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
ghc-hxt-charproperties-9.2.0.1-1.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498410
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
Package accepted.
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated".
6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-hxt-unicode/review-ghc-hxt-
unicode/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 163840 bytes in 20 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]: 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]: 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-hxt-unicode-9.0.2.4-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-hxt-unicode-devel-9.0.2.4-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-hxt-unicode-9.0.2.4-1.fc28.src.rpm
ghc-hxt-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) iso -> ISO, is, so
ghc-hxt-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) latin -> Latin, lain,
satin
ghc-hxt-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) encodings -> encoding,
encoding s, recordings
ghc-hxt-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iso -> ISO, is,
so
ghc-hxt-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US latin -> Latin,
lain, satin
ghc-hxt-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US somes -> domes,
some, sames
ghc-hxt-unicode.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings ->
encoding, encoding s, recordings
ghc-hxt-unicode.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hxt-unicode.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) iso -> ISO, is, so
ghc-hxt-unicode.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) latin -> Latin, lain,
satin
ghc-hxt-unicode.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) encodings -> encoding,
encoding s, recordings
ghc-hxt-unicode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US iso -> ISO, is, so
ghc-hxt-unicode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US latin -> Latin,
lain, satin
ghc-hxt-unicode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US somes -> domes,
some, sames
ghc-hxt-unicode.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US encodings ->
encoding, encoding s, recordings
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 15 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498400
Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> ---
Package accepted.
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 20 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema/review-ghc-hxt-
regex-xmlschema/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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 563200 bytes in 34 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]: 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]: 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.
[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:
[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-hxt-regex-xmlschema-9.2.0.3-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema-devel-9.2.0.3-2.fc28.x86_64.rpm
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema-9.2.0.3-2.fc28.src.rpm
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http ->
HTTP
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www ->
WWW, wow
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US regexs
-> regex, regexps, regex's
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exor ->
xor, e xor, ex or
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
subexpressions -> sub expressions, sub-expressions, expressionless
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
tokenizers -> tokenism
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http ->
HTTP
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www ->
WWW, wow
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US regexs ->
regex, regexps, regex's
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US exor ->
xor, e xor, ex or
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
subexpressions -> sub expressions, sub-expressions, expressionless
ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tokenizers
-> tokenism
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491632
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1498410
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498410
[Bug 1498410] Review Request: ghc-hxt-unicode - Unicode en-/decoding
functions for utf8, iso-latin-* and other encodings
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498410
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |haskell-devel(a)lists.fedorap
| |roject.org
Depends On| |1491632
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491632
[Bug 1491632] Review Request: ghc-hxt-charproperties - Character properties
and classes for XML and Unicode
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491632
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |1498400
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498400
[Bug 1498400] Review Request: ghc-hxt-regex-xmlschema - A regular
expression library for W3C XML Schema regular expressions
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1498400
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |haskell-devel(a)lists.fedorap
| |roject.org
Depends On| |1491632
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491632
[Bug 1491632] Review Request: ghc-hxt-charproperties - Character properties
and classes for XML and Unicode
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.