https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
Bug ID: 1245022 Summary: Review Request: ghc-base-compat - A compatibility layer for base Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mathstuf@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-base-compat/ghc-base-compat.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-base-compat/ghc-base-compat-0.8.2-1.fc24... Description: Provides functions available in later versions of 'base' to a wider range of compilers, without requiring you to use CPP pragmas in your code. See the README for what is covered. Also see the changelog for recent changes.
Note that 'base-compat' does not add any orphan instances. There is a separate package 'base-orphans' for that.
Fedora Account System Username: mathstuf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
Ben Boeckel mathstuf@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |haskell-devel@lists.fedorap | |roject.org Alias| |ghc-base-compat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
Ben Boeckel mathstuf@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1202163
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202163 [Bug 1202163] ghc-hledger-lib-0.26 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |i@cicku.me Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |i@cicku.me Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
--- Comment #1 from Ben Boeckel mathstuf@gmail.com --- Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-base-compat/ghc-base-compat.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-base-compat/ghc-base-compat-0.9.1-1.fc25...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Ping :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- ERROR: 'Error 404 downloading http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-base-compat/ghc-base-compat-0.9.1-1.fc25...' (logs in /home/petersen/.cache/fedora-review.log)
;-)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
--- Comment #4 from Ben Boeckel mathstuf@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ghc-base-compat/ghc-base-compat.... SRPM URL: https://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ghc-base-compat/ghc-base-compat-...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|i@cicku.me |petersen@redhat.com Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- I am taking this - hope you don't mind Christopher.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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". 58 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/petersen/pkgreview/1245022-ghc-base-compat/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [-]: %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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 20480 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 %license. [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. [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. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15020980 [-]: %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-base-compat-0.9.1-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm ghc-base-compat-devel-0.9.1-1.fc25.x86_64.rpm ghc-base-compat-0.9.1-1.fc25.src.rpm ghc-base-compat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pragmas -> pragmatism ghc-base-compat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US changelog -> change log, change-log, changeling ghc-base-compat.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-base-compat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pragmas -> pragmatism ghc-base-compat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US changelog -> change log, change-log, changeling ghc-base-compat.src: W: strange-permission base-compat-0.9.1.tar.gz 640 ghc-base-compat.src: W: strange-permission ghc-base-compat.spec 640 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ghc-base-compat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pragmas -> pragmatism ghc-base-compat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US changelog -> change log, change-log, changeling ghc-base-compat.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Requires -------- ghc-base-compat-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc-base-compat(x86-64) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.8.2.0-0d6d1084fbc041e1cded9228e80e264d) ghc-devel(unix-2.7.1.0-343d4f566f30113da92e819f4a148640)
ghc-base-compat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSarray-0.5.1.0-67iodizgJQIIxYVTp4emlA-ghc7.10.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.8.2.0-HQfYBxpPvuw8OunzQu6JGM-ghc7.10.3.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.10.6.0-6VWy06pWzJq9evDvK2d4w6-ghc7.10.3.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.4.1.1-6vMKxt5sPFR0XsbRWvvq59-ghc7.10.3.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.4.0.0-8TmvWUcS1U1IKHT0levwg3-ghc7.10.3.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-1.0.0.0-2aU3IZNMF9a7mQ0OzsZ0dS-ghc7.10.3.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.5.0.1-FTheb6LSxyX1UABIbBXRfn-ghc7.10.3.so()(64bit) libHSunix-2.7.1.0-KZL8h98IqDM57kQSPo1mKx-ghc7.10.3.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) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- ghc-base-compat-devel: ghc-base-compat-devel ghc-base-compat-devel(x86-64) ghc-base-compat-static ghc-devel(base-compat-0.9.1-88d2eb460760f8335257e69c0f87aa82)
ghc-base-compat: ghc-base-compat ghc-base-compat(x86-64) libHSbase-compat-0.9.1-3Zy8UsyHmBEEwbReR8x1KT-ghc7.10.3.so()(64bit)
Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-base-compat: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.10.3/basec_3Zy8UsyHmBEEwbReR8x1KT/libHSbase-compat-0.9.1-3Zy8UsyHmBEEwbReR8x1KT-ghc7.10.3.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/base-compat-0.9.1/base-compat-0.9.1.tar.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1033b48146b9ffcf4f7c75a321ea0b1525c1b662230f46c41957a1b501b6464a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1033b48146b9ffcf4f7c75a321ea0b1525c1b662230f46c41957a1b501b6464a
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 1245022 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
Looks good to me.
APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
--- Comment #6 from Ben Boeckel mathstuf@gmail.com --- Requested on pkgdb.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ghc-base-compat
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-base-compat-0.9.1-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-4e723324b7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
Ben Boeckel mathstuf@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2016-08-04 22:14:30
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-base-compat-0.9.1-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-9a8a71b239
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-base-compat-0.9.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 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-2016-4e723324b7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-base-compat-0.9.1-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-2016-9a8a71b239
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
Igor Gnatenko ignatenko@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias|ghc-base-compat |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-base-compat-0.9.1-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2016-08-04 22:14:30 |2016-08-15 17:26:32
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1245022
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- ghc-base-compat-0.9.1-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org