Bug 2010172

Hello Jens,
thank you for the package.

I installed it and it works as expected. There are just a few minor
things that I would like to propose. 

> # generated by cabal-rpm-2.0.10
> # Begin cabal-rpm sources:
> # End cabal-rpm deps
> ...

Can you please remove all these automatically generated comments?

> %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} --bash-completion-script %{name} | sed s/filenames/default/ > %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/%{name}

Can you please add a comment explaining what we need the `sed` for?

Also, the line is quite long, this might be more readable

%{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} --bash-completion-script %{name} \
    | sed s/filenames/default/ \
    > %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/%{name}

but that's just a suggestion, it's up to you what you prefer.

Hi Jakub,

Thanks for looking at the package

(In reply to Jakub Kadlčík from comment #1)
> I installed it and it works as expected.

Cool

> > # generated by cabal-rpm-2.0.10
> > # Begin cabal-rpm sources:
> > # End cabal-rpm deps
> > ...
> 
> Can you please remove all these automatically generated comments?

I can remove them, though they are generated intentionally by the cabal-rpm packaging tool.
Particularly the first line, used to record the version,
allows updates to newer cabal-rpm versions to be done more easily.

The Begin/End delimiter comments are there to help reduce patch conflicts when updating the package.

> > %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} --bash-completion-script %{name} | sed s/filenames/default/ > %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/%{name}
> 
> Can you please add a comment explaining what we need the `sed` for?

Sure good idea.

> Also, the line is quite long, this might be more readable
> 
> %{buildroot}%{_bindir}/%{name} --bash-completion-script %{name} \
>     | sed s/filenames/default/ \
>     > %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/bash-completion/completions/%{name}

Okay, I can change it.

Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hwk/hwk.spec
SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hwk/hwk-0.6-2.fc37.src.rpm

format and comment on bash-completion pipeline (#2010172, Jakub Kadlčík)

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91121485

Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hwk/hwk.spec
SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hwk/hwk-0.6-2.fc37.src.rpm

format and comment on bash-completion pipeline (#2010172, Jakub Kadlčík)

Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=91121485

(sorry oops duplicate comment: "fbrnch update-review" was giving me a json error somehow)

> I can remove them, though they are generated intentionally by the cabal-rpm packaging tool.
> Particularly the first line, used to record the version,
> allows updates to newer cabal-rpm versions to be done more easily.

You are right. I went through other ghc-* packages and they all have these comments.
Sorry about that, please keep them.

The fedora-review tool is reporting one issue


    Issues:
    =======
    - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
    in the spec URL.
    Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /var/lib/copr-
    rpmbuild/results/hwk/diff.txt
    See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/


The diff.txt looks like this

    diff -U2 -r /home/jkadlcik/2010172-hwk/upstream-unpacked/Source0/hwk-0.6/hwk.cabal /home/jkadlcik/2010172-hwk/srpm-unpacked/hwk-0.6.tar.gz-extract/hwk-0.6/hwk.cabal
    --- /home/jkadlcik/2010172-hwk/upstream-unpacked/Source0/hwk-0.6/hwk.cabal      2001-09-09 03:46:40.000000000 +0200
    +++ /home/jkadlcik/2010172-hwk/srpm-unpacked/hwk-0.6.tar.gz-extract/hwk-0.6/hwk.cabal   2001-09-09 03:46:40.000000000 +0200
    @@ -13,5 +13,5 @@
    maintainer:          Jens Petersen <juhpetersen>
    copyright:           2016-2017 Lukas Martinelli,
    -                     2020-2021 Jens Petersen
    +                     2020 Jens Petersen
    category:            Development
    build-type:          Simple
    diff -U2 -r /home/jkadlcik/2010172-hwk/upstream-unpacked/Source0/hwk-0.6/README.md /home/jkadlcik/2010172-hwk/srpm-unpacked/hwk-0.6.tar.gz-extract/hwk-0.6/README.md
    --- /home/jkadlcik/2010172-hwk/upstream-unpacked/Source0/hwk-0.6/README.md      2001-09-09 03:46:40.000000000 +0200
    +++ /home/jkadlcik/2010172-hwk/srpm-unpacked/hwk-0.6.tar.gz-extract/hwk-0.6/README.md   2001-09-09 03:46:40.000000000 +0200
    @@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
    # hwk ![MIT licensed](https://img.shields.io/badge/license-MIT-blue.svg)

    +<img align="right" alt="hwk" src="hwk.png" />
    +
    **hwk** (pronounced "hawk") is a simple Haskell-based commandline text processing tool, somewhat similar to tools like *awk*, *grep*, *sed*.
    `hwk` applies composed pure Haskell functions to a list of lines of input, enabling text processing without having to remember an obscure DSL or awkward cli options. This tool can also help to encourage people to think functionally.

    -<img align="right" alt="[hawk image]" src="hwk.png" />
    -
    hwk was originally written by Lukas Martinelli in 2016-2017:
    see the [original README file](README.md.orig).


There is a difference only in metadata so it shouldn't cause any
problems but I am more worried about why there is this sources
mismatch in the first place.

Do you understand how it happened?

Sorry about the tarball - you are indeed right, seems I maybe put a pre-release tarball in this submitted package. :-(

I think maybe I was testing the upstream RC using this rpm package,
then seems I forgot to update the packaged tarball with the final tarball.
Apologies for that.

I will upload a refreshed package now, thank you for catching this.

Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hwk/hwk.spec
SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hwk/hwk-0.6-3.fc37.src.rpm

use the final 0.6 release tarball (#2010172, Jakub Kadlčík)

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

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



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

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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", "MIT License". 8 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
     rpmbuild/results/hwk/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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: 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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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:
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[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).
[x]: 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.
[?]: 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]: 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.


Rpmlint
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/hwk-0.6/hwk-0.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 68b0fd174d73cc9c4c324233b76015f8daa63b3342878e68aca5f71890cdc3f6
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 68b0fd174d73cc9c4c324233b76015f8daa63b3342878e68aca5f71890cdc3f6


Requires
--------
hwk (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ghc-compiler
    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)
    libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)



Provides
--------
hwk:
    hwk
    hwk(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.8.0 (e988316) last change: 2022-04-07
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name hwk --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: R, fonts, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, Ocaml, PHP, Python, C/C++, Java
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thank you for reviewing the package, Jakub!

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46655

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hwk

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46693
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46694
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46695
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/46696

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2f6165822e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 9. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2f6165822e

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2f6165822e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.

You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2f6165822e

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

FEDORA-EPEL-2022-2f6165822e has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.