Bug 1245022

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.src.rpm

Ping :)

ERROR: 'Error 404 downloading http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-base-compat/ghc-base-compat-0.9.1-1.fc25.src.rpm' (logs in /home/petersen/.cache/fedora-review.log)

;-)

Spec URL: https://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ghc-base-compat/ghc-base-compat.spec
SRPM URL: https://mathstuf.fedorapeople.org/packaging/ghc-base-compat/ghc-base-compat-0.9.1-1.fc25.src.rpm

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.gz :
  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

Requested on pkgdb.

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ghc-base-compat

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

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

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

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

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.

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.