Bug 1564678 - Review Request: ghc-fclabels - First class accessor labels implemented as lenses
Summary: Review Request: ghc-fclabels - First class accessor labels implemented as lenses
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert-André Mauchin 🐧
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2018-04-06 21:04 UTC by Elliott Sales de Andrade
Modified: 2018-04-17 00:15 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2018-04-17 00:15:44 UTC
Type: ---
zebob.m: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Elliott Sales de Andrade 2018-04-06 21:04:08 UTC
Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//ghc-fclabels.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org//ghc-fclabels-

This package provides first class labels that can act as bidirectional record
fields. The labels can be derived automatically using Template Haskell which
means you don't have to write any boilerplate yourself. The labels are
implemented as /lenses/ and are fully composable. Lenses can be used to /get/,
/set/ and /modify/ parts of a data type in a consistent way.

See "Data.Label" for an introductory explanation or see the introductory blog
post at <http://fvisser.nl/post/2013/okt/1/fclabels-2.0.html>

* /Total and partial lenses/

Internally lenses do not used Haskell functions directly, but are implemented
as categories. Categories allow the lenses to be run in custom computational
contexts. This approach allows us to make partial lenses that point to fields
of multi-constructor datatypes in an elegant way.

See "Data.Label.Partial" for the use of partial labels.

* /Monomorphic and polymorphic lenses/

We have both polymorphic and monomorphic lenses. Polymorphic lenses allow
updates that change the type. The types of polymorphic lenses are slightly more
verbose than their monomorphic counterparts, but their usage is similar.
Because monomorphic lenses are built by restricting the types of polymorphic
lenses they are essentially the same and can be freely composed with eachother.

See "Data.Label.Mono" and "Data.Label.Poly" for the difference between
polymorphic and monomorphic lenses.

* /Using fclabels/

To simplify working with labels we supply both a set of labels for Haskell's
base types, like lists, tuples, Maybe and Either, and we supply a set of
combinators for working with labels for values in the Reader and State monad.

See "Data.Label.Base" and "Data.Label.Monadic" for more information.

* /Changelog from to

> - Allow HUnit 1.5.*.

Comment 1 Elliott Sales de Andrade 2018-04-06 21:05:06 UTC
koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=26198477 (on 28 because rawhide macros are broken atm)

Comment 2 Elliott Sales de Andrade 2018-04-06 21:08:04 UTC
Small tweak, shortened the description substantially:

Spec URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/ghc-fclabels.spec
SRPM URL: https://qulogic.fedorapeople.org/ghc-fclabels-

Comment 3 Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 2018-04-07 11:14:50 UTC
> because rawhide macros are broken atm

Is there a bug report for this?

Scratch that, found the bug and filed a PR: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-rpm-macros/pull-request/1

Package approved.

Package Review

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

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

[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.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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)", "Unknown or generated". 16 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review
[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
[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 655360 bytes in 33 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 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

[-]: 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.
[-]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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 =====

[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.

Checking: ghc-fclabels-
ghc-fclabels.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) accessor -> accessory, access or, access-or
ghc-fclabels.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able
ghc-fclabels.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-fclabels.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) accessor -> accessory, access or, access-or
ghc-fclabels.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US composable -> compo sable, compo-sable, compos able
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2018-04-09 12:56:51 UTC
(fedrepo-req-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-fclabels

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2018-04-09 22:35:28 UTC
ghc-fclabels- has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-1daa2eac57

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2018-04-10 22:51:41 UTC
ghc-fclabels- has been pushed to the Fedora 28 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-2018-1daa2eac57

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2018-04-17 00:15:44 UTC
ghc-fclabels- has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.