Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com&gt; has canceled Package Review <package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org&gt;&#39;s request for Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com&gt;&#39;s needinfo: Bug 1993600: Review Request: c2hs - C->Haskell FFI tool that gives some cross-language type safety https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 Soumil <soumilkadam(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |soumilkadam(a)gmail.com --- Comment #2 from Soumil <soumilkadam(a)gmail.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Mass Ave)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU Library General Public License v2 or later", "*No copyright* Public domain", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 209 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/soumil/1993600-c2hs/licensecheck.txt [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: 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 61440 bytes in 4 files. [ ]: 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]: 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. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1 c2hs.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/c2hs c2hs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary c2hs c2hs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/c2hs/COPYING 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/c2hs-0.28.8/c2hs-0.28.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 390632cffc561c32483af474aac50168a68f0fa382096552e37749923617884c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 390632cffc561c32483af474aac50168a68f0fa382096552e37749923617884c Requires -------- c2hs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libffi.so.8()(64bit) libffi.so.8(LIBFFI_BASE_8.0)(64bit) libffi.so.8(LIBFFI_CLOSURE_8.0)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- c2hs: c2hs c2hs(x86-64) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 Tom "spot" Callaway <spotrh(a)gmail.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |spotrh(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |spotrh(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+ Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Tom "spot" Callaway <spotrh(a)gmail.com&gt; --- License tag isn't quite right. Core code is GPL-2.0-or-later, but C2HS.hs is BSD-3-Clause, and src/Text/Lexers.hs is LGPL-2.1-or-later. doc/c2hs.xml is GFDL-1.1-no-invariants-or-later, BUT I don't see it packaged here. I think the correct License tag should be: License: BSD-3-Clause AND GPL-2.0-or-later AND LGPL-2.1-or-later Please update the license tag before you commit, but this is otherwise approved. - rpmlint checks return: c2hs.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/c2hs c2hs.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary c2hs c2hs.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/c2hs/COPYING Not sure if a Haskell binary can be PIE. Defer to you on that. - package meets naming guidelines - package meets packaging guidelines - license tag needs updating, GPL-2.0 text in %doc - spec file legible, in am. english - source matches upstream - package compiles on devel (x86_64) - no missing BR - no unnecessary BR - no locales - not relocatable - owns all directories that it creates - no duplicate files - permissions ok - macro use consistent - code, not content - no need for -docs - nothing in %doc affects runtime - no need for .desktop file -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Thank you, also for checking the licensing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com&gt; --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/55251 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/55252 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2023-4bc4f8de82 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-4bc4f8de82 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2023-2eb6d3f0e8 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-2eb6d3f0e8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-2eb6d3f0e8 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2023-08-12 04:22:13 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; --- FEDORA-2023-2eb6d3f0e8 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1993600 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...