Bug 1748228
| Summary: | Review Request: ghc-xdg-userdirs - Basic implementation of XDG user directories specification | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jens Petersen <petersen> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | package-review, quantum.analyst |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | quantum.analyst:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | ghc-xdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-1.fc32 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2019-09-14 16:34:14 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Jens Petersen
2019-09-03 08:02:36 UTC
There are many many warnings about symbols, and it's so long I can't post them here, but this seems to be the same for all Haskell packages now. Approved. 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++: [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: "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 1748228-ghc-xdg-userdirs/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [?]: 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 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc-xdg- userdirs [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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-xdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm ghc-xdg-userdirs-devel-0.1.0.2-1.fc32.x86_64.rpm ghc-xdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-1.fc32.src.rpm ghc-xdg-userdirs.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libHSxdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-AlWEG884APmJXb2i5mkSdR-ghc8.6.5.so ghc-xdg-userdirs.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-xdg-userdirs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ghc-xdg-userdirs-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-xdg-userdirs.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/libHSxdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-AlWEG884APmJXb2i5mkSdR-ghc8.6.5.so *607 ghc-xdg-userdirs.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libHSxdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-AlWEG884APmJXb2i5mkSdR-ghc8.6.5.so ghc-xdg-userdirs.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 607 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-xdg-userdirs: /usr/lib64/libHSxdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-AlWEG884APmJXb2i5mkSdR-ghc8.6.5.so Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/xdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2/xdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 88aabbcb80dee5b669ad533af20000d561e6fe59ab1014ccc2482055d0a8046e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 88aabbcb80dee5b669ad533af20000d561e6fe59ab1014ccc2482055d0a8046e Requires -------- ghc-xdg-userdirs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSbase-4.12.0.0-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.6.0.1-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit) libHSdirectory-1.3.3.0-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit) libHSfilepath-1.4.2.1-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.5.3-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit) libHSxdg-basedir-0.2.2-5JeadMzUyJb8NlvsA3m40x-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-xdg-userdirs-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.12.0.0) ghc-devel(containers-0.6.0.1) ghc-devel(directory-1.3.3.0) ghc-devel(filepath-1.4.2.1) ghc-devel(xdg-basedir-0.2.2-5JeadMzUyJb8NlvsA3m40x) ghc-xdg-userdirs(x86-64) Provides -------- ghc-xdg-userdirs: ghc-xdg-userdirs ghc-xdg-userdirs(x86-64) libHSxdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-AlWEG884APmJXb2i5mkSdR-ghc8.6.5.so()(64bit) ghc-xdg-userdirs-devel: ghc-devel(xdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-AlWEG884APmJXb2i5mkSdR) ghc-xdg-userdirs-devel ghc-xdg-userdirs-devel(x86-64) ghc-xdg-userdirs-static ghc-xdg-userdirs-static(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1748228 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Haskell, C/C++, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Perl, SugarActivity, Python, Java, PHP, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Thanks, Elliot! (In reply to Elliott Sales de Andrade from comment #2) > ghc-xdg-userdirs.x86_64: W: undefined-non-weak-symbol > /usr/lib64/libHSxdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-AlWEG884APmJXb2i5mkSdR-ghc8.6.5.so *607 I reported this upstream as an RFE now (see bug 1719810). > ghc-xdg-userdirs.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc > /usr/lib64/libHSxdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-AlWEG884APmJXb2i5mkSdR-ghc8.6.5.so I also discussed this with the upstream maintainer. Is this listed in the Fedora Packaging Guidelines? Or is rpmlint being pedantic? (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #3) > > ghc-xdg-userdirs.x86_64: E: library-not-linked-against-libc > > /usr/lib64/libHSxdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-AlWEG884APmJXb2i5mkSdR-ghc8.6.5.so > > I also discussed this with the upstream maintainer. > > Is this listed in the Fedora Packaging Guidelines? Or is rpmlint being > pedantic? I asked rpmlint in bug 1749738. (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-xdg-userdirs FEDORA-2019-357899cb71 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-357899cb71 ghc-xdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 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-2019-357899cb71 ghc-xdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-1.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. FEDORA-2019-b3e08f274a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 30. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-b3e08f274a ghc-xdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 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-2019-b3e08f274a ghc-xdg-userdirs-0.1.0.2-2.fc30 has been pushed to the Fedora 30 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |