https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049694

Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2031315

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2031315 [Bug 2031315] F35FailsToInstall: ghc-hadolint, ghc-hadolint-devel, ghc-hadolint-prof

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049694

Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |petersen@redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049694

Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |POST

--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Package is APPROVED

Please be sure to bump the Release field number over the current hadolint ghc-ilist subpackage in Fedora Rawhide when importing.

Package Review ==============

Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

Issues: =======

===== MUST items =====

C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Mozilla Public License 2.0". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/petersen/2049694-ghc- ilist/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. [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 10240 bytes in 2 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 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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 ------- ghc-ilist-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-8.10.5/ilist-0.4.0.1/libHSilist-0.4.0.1-Jp0xCruIEnKGFvMbGXmDC6.a ghc-ilist-prof.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-8.10.5/ilist-0.4.0.1/libHSilist-0.4.0.1-Jp0xCruIEnKGFvMbGXmDC6_p.a ghc-ilist.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-ilist-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-ilist-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-8.10.5/ilist-0.4.0.1/libHSilist-0.4.0.1-Jp0xCruIEnKGFvMbGXmDC6_p.a 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.4 s

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- omitted

Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-ilist: /usr/lib64/libHSilist-0.4.0.1-Jp0xCruIEnKGFvMbGXmDC6-ghc8.10.5.so

Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/ilist-0.4.0.1/ilist.cabal#/ilist-0.4.0.1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5947f12a9354512149f7a5610769a6c8cebdb8d241a45b508edb70b371460747 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5947f12a9354512149f7a5610769a6c8cebdb8d241a45b508edb70b371460747 https://hackage.haskell.org/package/ilist-0.4.0.1/ilist-0.4.0.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0448857296974317ee162551ef3e2f31c434e114df6d17d7f6acd3476c52dc04 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0448857296974317ee162551ef3e2f31c434e114df6d17d7f6acd3476c52dc04

Requires -------- ghc-ilist (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSbase-4.14.2.0-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.6.1-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-1.0.3.0-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

ghc-ilist-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.14.2.0) ghc-ilist(x86-64)

Provides -------- ghc-ilist: ghc-ilist ghc-ilist(x86-64) libHSilist-0.4.0.1-Jp0xCruIEnKGFvMbGXmDC6-ghc8.10.5.so()(64bit)

ghc-ilist-devel: ghc-devel(ilist-0.4.0.1-Jp0xCruIEnKGFvMbGXmDC6) ghc-ilist-devel ghc-ilist-devel(x86-64) ghc-ilist-static ghc-ilist-static(x86-64)

Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2049694 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Haskell, Generic, C/C++, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Java, PHP, SugarActivity, R, Python, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049694

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED

--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-0cea910941 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-0cea910941

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049694

Mohamed El Morabity pikachu.2014@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2066718

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2066718 [Bug 2066718] F37FailsToInstall: ghc-hadolint, ghc-hadolint-devel, ghc-hadolint-prof

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049694

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-2e058cdd18 has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2022-2e058cdd18 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-2e058cdd18

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2049694

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2022-06-03 03:34:08

--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2022-0cea910941 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.