Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-HaXml/ghc-HaXml.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-HaXml/ghc-HaXml-1.25.5-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Haskell utilities for “true” parsing, filtering, transforming and generating XML documents. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51930456
Needed for haxr (xml-rpc library) and in turn by koji-hs and then fbrnch.
- The copyright file states: The HaXml tools Xtract, Validate, DtdToHaskell, XsdToHaskell, and MkOneOf, are licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence (GPL), which can be found in the file called LICENCE-GPL. So you should add GPL to the license field and add a comment explaining the license breakdown. Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU Lesser General Public License GNU General Public License", "Unknown or generated", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-HaXml/review-ghc-HaXml/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [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. [x]: 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 10240 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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: [-]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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 architectures. [-]: %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-HaXml-1.25.5-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ghc-HaXml-devel-1.25.5-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ghc-HaXml-1.25.5-1.fc34.src.rpm ghc-HaXml.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libHSHaXml-1.25.5-4iJ6mcsd4da4vQiNb6Hkid-ghc8.8.4.so ghc-HaXml.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-HaXml-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Canonicalise ghc-HaXml-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary CanonicaliseLazy ghc-HaXml-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary DtdToHaskell ghc-HaXml-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary FpMLToHaskell ghc-HaXml-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary MkOneOf ghc-HaXml-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Validate ghc-HaXml-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary XsdToHaskell ghc-HaXml-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary Xtract 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
Thank you for the review,Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30537
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #2) > - The copyright file states: > > The HaXml tools Xtract, Validate, DtdToHaskell, XsdToHaskell, and > MkOneOf, are licensed under the terms of the GNU General Public Licence > (GPL), which can be found in the file called LICENCE-GPL. > > > So you should add GPL to the license field and add a comment explaining the > license breakdown. > > Package approved. Please fix the aforementioned issue before import. Sure, thank you, I will do that.
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-HaXml
I think the cleanest way is to subpackage the GPL tools. (I wish RPM had a way of distinguishing the srpm and binary rpm licenses...) I hope the following change may be sufficient: --- ghc-HaXml.spec~ 2020-09-21 12:17:41.484055678 +0800 +++ ghc-HaXml.spec 2020-11-10 12:49:49.482084275 +0800 @@ -6,8 +6,8 @@ Name: ghc-%{pkg_name} Version: 1.25.5 -Release: 1%{?dist} -Summary: Utilities for “true” manipulating XML documents +Release: 2%{?dist} +Summary: Utilities for manipulating XML documents # https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/VFYIDDBGTIGNG6IJBW2BVSJLIUZXFXKC/ License: LGPLv2+ @@ -69,6 +69,14 @@ %endif +%package -n %{pkg_name} +Summary: Utilities for using XML documents with Haskell +License: GPLv2+ + +%description -n %{pkg_name} +This package provides the XML commandline tools for HaXml. + + %prep # Begin cabal-rpm setup: %setup -q -n %{pkgver} @@ -99,14 +107,6 @@ %files devel -f %{name}-devel.files %doc Changelog.md -%{_bindir}/Canonicalise -%{_bindir}/CanonicaliseLazy -%{_bindir}/DtdToHaskell -%{_bindir}/FpMLToHaskell -%{_bindir}/MkOneOf -%{_bindir}/Validate -%{_bindir}/XsdToHaskell -%{_bindir}/Xtract %if %{with haddock} @@ -122,6 +122,22 @@ %endif +%files -n %{pkg_name} +%license COPYRIGHT +%license LICENCE-GPL +%{_bindir}/Canonicalise +%{_bindir}/CanonicaliseLazy +%{_bindir}/DtdToHaskell +%{_bindir}/FpMLToHaskell +%{_bindir}/MkOneOf +%{_bindir}/Validate +%{_bindir}/XsdToHaskell +%{_bindir}/Xtract + + %changelog +* Tue Nov 10 2020 Jens Petersen <petersen> - 1.25.5-2 +- subpackage the tools, they are under GPL (#1880903) + * Tue Sep 1 2020 Jens Petersen <petersen> - 1.25.5-1 - spec file generated by cabal-rpm-2.0.6
FEDORA-2020-53b159127a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53b159127a
FEDORA-2020-edae7b83a3 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-edae7b83a3
FEDORA-2020-53b159127a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 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-2020-53b159127a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-53b159127a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-edae7b83a3 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-edae7b83a3 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-edae7b83a3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2020-edae7b83a3 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2020-53b159127a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.