Spec URL: https://petersen@petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-relude/ghc-relude.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen@petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-relude/ghc-relude-0.7.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: 'relude' is an alternative prelude library. If you find the default 'Prelude' unsatisfying, despite its advantages, consider using 'relude' instead. == Relude goals and design principles * Productivity: You can be more productive with a "non-standard" standard library, and 'relude' helps you with writing safer and more efficient code faster. * Total programming: Usage of partial functions can lead to unexpected bugs and runtime exceptions in pure code. The types of partial functions lie about their behavior. And even if it is not always possible to rely only on total functions, 'relude' strives to encourage best-practices and reduce the chances of introducing a bug. * Type-safety: We use the "make invalid states unrepresentable" motto as one of our guiding principles. If it is possible, we express this concept through the types. Example: ' whenNotNull :: Applicative f => [a] -> (NonEmpty a -> f ()) -> f () ' * Performance: We prefer 'Text' over 'String', use space-leaks-free functions (e.g. our custom performant 'sum' and 'product'), introduce 'INLINE' and 'SPECIALIZE' pragmas where appropriate, and make efficient container types (e.g. 'Map', 'HashMap', 'Set') more accessible. * Minimalism (low number of dependencies): We do not force users of 'relude' to stick to any specific lens or text formatting or logging library. Where possible, 'relude' depends only on boot libraries. * Convenience: Despite minimalism, we want to bring commonly used types and functions into scope, and make available functions easier to use. * Excellent documentation: 1. Tutorial 2. Migration guide from 'Prelude' 3. Haddock for every function with examples tested by doctest 4. Documentation regarding internal module structure 5. 'relude'-specific HLint rules * User-friendliness: Anyone should be able to quickly migrate to 'relude'. Only some basic familiarity with the common libraries like 'text' and 'containers' should be enough (but not necessary). * Exploration: We have space to experiment with new ideas and proposals without introducing breaking changes. 'relude' uses the approach with 'Extra.*' modules which are not exported by default. The chosen approach makes it quite easy for us to provide new functionality without breaking anything and let the users decide to use it or not. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=59881728
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-relude/ghc-relude.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-relude/ghc-relude-0.7.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm fixed the package urls
Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 65 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-relude/review-ghc- relude/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. [-]: 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 51200 bytes in 2 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-relude-0.7.0.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm ghc-relude-devel-0.7.0.0-1.fc35.x86_64.rpm ghc-relude-0.7.0.0-1.fc35.src.rpm ghc-relude.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unrepresentable -> unrepresentative, unrepresented, unpreventable ghc-relude.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whenNotNull -> whensoever ghc-relude.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Applicative -> Application, Multiplicative ghc-relude.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance ghc-relude.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pragmas -> pragmatism ghc-relude.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doctest -> doc test, doc-test, doctorate ghc-relude.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-relude.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unrepresentable -> unrepresentative, unrepresented, unpreventable ghc-relude.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whenNotNull -> whensoever ghc-relude.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Applicative -> Application, Multiplicative ghc-relude.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US performant -> perform ant, perform-ant, performance ghc-relude.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pragmas -> pragmatism ghc-relude.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doctest -> doc test, doc-test, doctorate 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 13 warnings.
Thank you for the review, Robert-André https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32857
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-relude
FEDORA-2021-774a8e8590 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-774a8e8590
FEDORA-2021-e2b9280edd has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e2b9280edd
FEDORA-2021-e2b9280edd has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-e2b9280edd \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e2b9280edd See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-774a8e8590 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-774a8e8590 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-774a8e8590 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-774a8e8590 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-e2b9280edd has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.