https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1850146
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 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: "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed
output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-
bitarray/review-ghc-bitarray/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/ghc(ghc-
EdisonCore-doc, ghc-Agda-doc, ghc-dns-doc, ghc-parsers-doc, ghc-time-
manager-doc, ghc-murmur-hash-doc, ghc-uri-encode-doc, ghc-cborg-doc,
ghc-aeson-better-errors-doc, ghc-geniplate-mirror-doc, ghc-http2-doc,
ghc-compiler, ghc-EdisonAPI-doc), /usr/share/doc/ghc/html(ghc-
EdisonCore-doc, ghc-Agda-doc, ghc-dns-doc, ghc-parsers-doc, ghc-time-
manager-doc, ghc-murmur-hash-doc, ghc-uri-encode-doc, ghc-cborg-doc,
ghc-aeson-better-errors-doc, ghc-geniplate-mirror-doc, ghc-http2-doc,
ghc-compiler, ghc-EdisonAPI-doc),
/usr/share/doc/ghc/html/libraries(ghc-EdisonCore-doc, ghc-Agda-doc,
ghc-dns-doc, ghc-parsers-doc, ghc-time-manager-doc, ghc-murmur-hash-
doc, ghc-uri-encode-doc, ghc-cborg-doc, ghc-aeson-better-errors-doc,
ghc-geniplate-mirror-doc, ghc-http2-doc, ghc-compiler, ghc-EdisonAPI-
doc), /usr/share/doc/ghc/html/libraries/bitarray-0.0.1.1(ghc-bitarray-
doc), /usr/share/doc/ghc/html/libraries/bitarray-0.0.1.1/src(ghc-
bitarray-doc)
[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.
[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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %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-bitarray-0.0.1.1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
ghc-bitarray-devel-0.0.1.1-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
ghc-bitarray-0.0.1.1-1.fc33.src.rpm
ghc-bitarray.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-bitarray-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849255
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |MODIFIED
Fixed In Version| |ghc-network-bsd-2.8.0.0-1.f
| |c33
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849255
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tdecacqu(a)redhat.com
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822444
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2020-e2b19c9cc6 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, 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=1850146
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |haskell-devel(a)lists.fedorap
| |roject.org
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
Needed by unicode-transforms for pandoc and stack.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849255
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |POST
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849255
Tristan Cacqueray <tdecacqu(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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=1849255
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #3)
> > Latest version is 2.8.1.0
>
> That's correct, but I don't think it in current Rawhide: since it needs
> network-3
Ugh, that was meant to read: I don't think 2.8.1.0 can build in current lts-14
rawhide.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849255
--- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Tristan Cacqueray from comment #2)
> LGTM, thanks. A couple of comments:
>
> Latest version is 2.8.1.0
That's correct, but I don't think it in current Rawhide: since it needs
network-3
but it can be updated after to the latest version.
> No doc or test, I guess there is not much we can do when they don't exist in
> upstream project.
Right there is only the doc subpackage, and no testsuite in this case.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849255
Tristan Cacqueray <tdecacqu(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tdecacqu(a)redhat.com
--- Comment #2 from Tristan Cacqueray <tdecacqu(a)redhat.com> ---
LGTM, thanks. A couple of comments:
Latest version is 2.8.1.0
No doc or test, I guess there is not much we can do when they don't exist in
upstream project.
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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 2
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fedora/1849255-ghc-network-bsd/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged. latest is 2.8.1.0
[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.
[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. (no test in upstream project)
[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]: 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-network-bsd-devel-2.8.0.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm
ghc-network-bsd-2.8.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm
ghc-network-bsd-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
ghc-network-bsd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-network-bsd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP
ghc-network-bsd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackage ->
package, hack age, hack-age
ghc-network-bsd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell ->
Haskell, seashell
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb
backend.
ghc-network-bsd-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL:
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/network-bsd <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name
or service not known>
ghc-network-bsd-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
ghc-network-bsd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/network-bsd-2.8.0.0/network-bsd-2.8.0.0…
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
25ded905970d2a22bfea0427534870d890b3cfc3f7867bf8f5c62391f3e3cb35
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
25ded905970d2a22bfea0427534870d890b3cfc3f7867bf8f5c62391f3e3cb35
Requires
--------
ghc-network-bsd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
ghc-compiler
ghc-devel(base-4.12.0.0)
ghc-devel(network-2.8.0.1-Hmt657UE3v349uYmvUXEvW)
Provides
--------
ghc-network-bsd-devel:
ghc-devel(network-bsd-2.8.0.0-dhH6BzRfiq3GBPUbfkNPu)
ghc-network-bsd-devel
ghc-network-bsd-devel(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1849255
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Haskell, Generic
Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, Java, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Python, Perl,
SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1849255
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |haskell-devel(a)lists.fedorap
| |roject.org
Severity|unspecified |medium
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822444
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #3 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2020-e2b19c9cc6 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing
--advisory=FEDORA-2020-e2b19c9cc6`
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e2b19c9cc6
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information
on how to test updates.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1822444
Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
FEDORA-2020-e2b19c9cc6 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e2b19c9cc6
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833960
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
Last Closed| |2020-06-04 13:50:24
--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1832446 ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1833960
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> ---
I think it is okay to orphan, there are relatively few consumers of this
library.
https://packdeps.haskellers.com/reverse/dns
Though I don't mind taking it either.
You could ask haskell@lists too, please, if anyone wants it.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1464626
Upstream Release Monitoring <upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|ghc-wai-extra-3.0.29.1 is |ghc-wai-extra-3.0.29.2 is
|available |available
--- Comment #26 from Upstream Release Monitoring <upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org> ---
Latest upstream release: 3.0.29.2
Current version/release in rawhide: 3.0.29-1.fc32
URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/wai-extra
Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a
stable branch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/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/1096/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.