[Bug 1140914] Review Request: ghc-conduit-extra - Conduit adapters for common libraries
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140914
Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> ---
LGTM (should take another look once 1.1 is used though)
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/boeckb/misc/code/review/1140914-ghc-conduit-extra/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[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.
1.0.0.1 is the latest 1.0 release (1.1 to follow).
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-conduit-extra-1.0.0.1-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
ghc-conduit-extra-devel-1.0.0.1-2.fc22.x86_64.rpm
ghc-conduit-extra-1.0.0.1-2.fc22.src.rpm
ghc-conduit-extra.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell ->
Haskell
ghc-conduit-extra.x86_64: E: no-binary
ghc-conduit-extra-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
ghc-conduit-extra-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-conduit-extra.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell ->
Haskell
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
ghc-conduit-extra (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ghc-conduit-extra-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
ghc-compiler
ghc-conduit-extra(x86-64)
Provides
--------
ghc-conduit-extra:
ghc-conduit-extra
ghc-conduit-extra(x86-64)
ghc-conduit-extra-devel:
ghc-conduit-extra-devel
ghc-conduit-extra-devel(x86-64)
ghc-conduit-extra-static
Source checksums
----------------
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/conduit-extra-1.0.0.1/conduit-extra-1....
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
ea5d045ea103f85993caf1b04faf615f75b822cce9c06130ac9190863a235547
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ea5d045ea103f85993caf1b04faf615f75b822cce9c06130ac9190863a235547
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config
fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bb-tmpfs --bug 1140914
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Haskell, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
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=YSwudGGku8&a=cc_unsubscribe
9 years, 5 months
[Bug 1112938] Review Request: ghc-mime-types - Basic mime-type handling types and functions
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1112938
Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> ---
LGTM
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[?]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 337920 bytes in 17 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ghc-mime-types-0.1.0.4-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
ghc-mime-types-devel-0.1.0.4-1.fc22.x86_64.rpm
ghc-mime-types-0.1.0.4-1.fc22.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires
--------
ghc-mime-types-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/sh
ghc(mime-types-0.1.0.4-f1be0ca62e0571b56239859506ee08d3)
ghc-compiler
ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f)
ghc-devel(containers-0.5.0.0-ab1dae9a94cd3cc84e7b2805636ebfa2)
ghc-devel(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607)
ghc-mime-types(x86-64)
ghc-mime-types (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57)
ghc(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f)
ghc(containers-0.5.0.0-ab1dae9a94cd3cc84e7b2805636ebfa2)
ghc(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607)
libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSbytestring-0.10.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHScontainers-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libHStext-0.11.3.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides
--------
ghc-mime-types-devel:
ghc-devel(mime-types-0.1.0.4-f1be0ca62e0571b56239859506ee08d3)
ghc-mime-types-devel
ghc-mime-types-devel(x86-64)
ghc-mime-types-static
ghc-mime-types:
ghc(mime-types-0.1.0.4-f1be0ca62e0571b56239859506ee08d3)
ghc-mime-types
ghc-mime-types(x86-64)
libHSmime-types-0.1.0.4-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit)
Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ghc-mime-types:
/usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/mime-types-0.1.0.4/libHSmime-types-0.1.0.4-ghc7.6.3.so
Source checksums
----------------
http://hackage.haskell.org/package/mime-types-0.1.0.4/mime-types-0.1.0.4....
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
5dc87de5461d217f003259fe5b3260179449ea2fecaeab6779b09e8b3e9fb02f
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
5dc87de5461d217f003259fe5b3260179449ea2fecaeab6779b09e8b3e9fb02f
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --mock-config
fedora-rawhide-x86_64-bb-tmpfs --bug 1112938
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Haskell, Shell-api, C/C++
Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
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=Gt4jTbBocF&a=cc_unsubscribe
9 years, 5 months
[Bug 1132275] New: ghc-rpm-macros should run ghc-deps.sh using a fileattrs file
by Red Hat Bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1132275
Bug ID: 1132275
Summary: ghc-rpm-macros should run ghc-deps.sh using a
fileattrs file
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Component: ghc-rpm-macros
Severity: high
Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com
Reporter: petersen(a)redhat.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org,
haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org,
jzeleny(a)redhat.com, novyjindrich(a)gmail.com,
packaging-team-maint(a)redhat.com, petersen(a)redhat.com,
philip(a)tecnocode.co.uk, pknirsch(a)redhat.com,
pmatilai(a)redhat.com
Depends On: 1131892
Blocks: 1129484
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1131892 +++
In the Fedora 21 and 22 build slaves, `rpmdeps --provides` crashes when
building bustle-0.4.7:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7407823
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7407826
Here’s the relevant bit of the log:
Finding Provides: /usr/lib/rpm/find-provides
/usr/lib/rpm/find-provides: line 3: 15767 Segmentation fault
/usr/lib/rpm/rpmdeps --provides
error: /usr/lib/rpm/find-provides failed: 8b00
error: Failed to find Provides:
Requires(interp): /bin/sh /bin/sh /bin/sh
Requires(post): /bin/sh
Requires(postun): /bin/sh
Requires(posttrans): /bin/sh
RPM build errors:
/usr/lib/rpm/find-provides failed: 8b00
Failed to find Provides:
Child return code was: 1
I can’t reproduce this locally (but I’m on F19 and can’t upgrade at the moment)
so I can’t get a backtrace. Is there a sensible way of getting one?
bustle.spec is here:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/bustle.git/tree/bustle.spec (from bug
#1129484).
--- Additional comment from Panu Matilainen on 2014-08-20 18:05:17 JST ---
Fix is being built.
However any package tripping up on this should reviewed as to why the external
dependency generator is being used. Its possible there are some real usecases
for that still, but 99% the cases are filtering hacks that are either no longer
needed or would be better of using native filtering
(http://rpm.org/wiki/PackagerDocs/DependencyGenerator)
--- Additional comment from Panu Matilainen on 2014-08-20 18:11:58 JST ---
Oh and as for bustle, its not guilty of anything in itself. The problem (of
using the deprecated external dependency generator) comes from ghc-rpm-macros.
--- Additional comment from Panu Matilainen on 2014-08-20 18:17:01 JST ---
Fixed in rpm-4.12.0-0.beta1.4.fc22 (and fc21 once it finishes building):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7429952
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7429979
--- Additional comment from Jens Petersen on 2014-08-21 00:29:26 JST ---
Thanks! - I ran into this earlier today when doing a ghc scratch build.
I will see what changes should be made to ghc-rpm-macros.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1129484
[Bug 1129484] Review Request: bustle - Draw pretty sequence diagrams of
D-Bus traffic
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1131892
[Bug 1131892] rpmdeps --provides crashes when building bustle-0.4.7
--
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=DRgVJvvce2&a=cc_unsubscribe
9 years, 5 months