Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-network-bsd/ghc-network-bsd.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-network-bsd/ghc-network-bsd-2.8.0.0-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: This package reexports the "Network.BSD" module split from the <https://hackage.haskell.org/package/network-2.8.0.0 network-2.8.0.0> package. See newer versions of <https://hackage.haskell.org/package/network-bsd network-bsd> for more information. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45895397
This library is basically a blocker for F33 moving to ghc-8.8.3 (LTS 15/16): or more precisely network-3.0: $ grep "BuildRequires: ghc-network-bsd" */*.spec ghc-MissingH/ghc-MissingH.spec\035:BuildRequires: ghc-network-bsd-prof ghc-aws/ghc-aws.spec\049:BuildRequires: ghc-network-bsd-prof ghc-happstack-server/ghc-happstack-server.spec\037:BuildRequires: ghc-network-bsd-prof ghc-hslogger/ghc-hslogger.spec\029:BuildRequires: ghc-network-bsd-prof ghc-network-multicast/ghc-network-multicast.spec\023:BuildRequires: ghc-network-bsd-prof gitit/gitit.spec\075:BuildRequires: ghc-network-bsd-prof
LGTM, thanks. A couple of comments: Latest version is 2.8.1.0 No doc or test, I guess there is not much we can do when they don't exist in upstream project. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== 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 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/1849255-ghc-network-bsd/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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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. [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]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. latest is 2.8.1.0 [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. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. (no test in upstream project) [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-network-bsd-devel-2.8.0.0-1.fc33.x86_64.rpm ghc-network-bsd-2.8.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm ghc-network-bsd-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ghc-network-bsd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-network-bsd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP ghc-network-bsd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hackage -> package, hack age, hack-age ghc-network-bsd.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell -> Haskell, seashell 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. warning: Found bdb Packages database while attempting sqlite backend: using bdb backend. ghc-network-bsd-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-url URL: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/network-bsd <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> ghc-network-bsd-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib ghc-network-bsd-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/network-bsd-2.8.0.0/network-bsd-2.8.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 25ded905970d2a22bfea0427534870d890b3cfc3f7867bf8f5c62391f3e3cb35 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 25ded905970d2a22bfea0427534870d890b3cfc3f7867bf8f5c62391f3e3cb35 Requires -------- ghc-network-bsd-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.12.0.0) ghc-devel(network-2.8.0.1-Hmt657UE3v349uYmvUXEvW) Provides -------- ghc-network-bsd-devel: ghc-devel(network-bsd-2.8.0.0-dhH6BzRfiq3GBPUbfkNPu) ghc-network-bsd-devel ghc-network-bsd-devel(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1849255 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Haskell, Generic Disabled plugins: C/C++, R, Java, PHP, Ocaml, fonts, Python, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Tristan Cacqueray from comment #2) > LGTM, thanks. A couple of comments: > > Latest version is 2.8.1.0 That's correct, but I don't think it in current Rawhide: since it needs network-3 but it can be updated after to the latest version. > No doc or test, I guess there is not much we can do when they don't exist in > upstream project. Right there is only the doc subpackage, and no testsuite in this case.
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #3) > > Latest version is 2.8.1.0 > > That's correct, but I don't think it in current Rawhide: since it needs > network-3 Ugh, that was meant to read: I don't think 2.8.1.0 can build in current lts-14 rawhide.
Thank you for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/26042
Thank you for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/26290
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-network-bsd
FEDORA-2020-e602d1a552 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e602d1a552
FEDORA-2020-49aa923d00 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-49aa923d00
FEDORA-2020-49aa923d00 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-49aa923d00 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-49aa923d00 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-e602d1a552 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-e602d1a552 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-e602d1a552 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-e602d1a552 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-49aa923d00 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.