Spec URL: https://petersen@petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-bugzilla-redhat/ghc-bugzilla-redhat.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen@petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-bugzilla-redhat/ghc-bugzilla-redhat-0.3.1-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: This package is designed to provide an easy-to-use, typesafe interface to querying Bugzilla from Haskell. This is a friendly fork of Seth Fowler's library, with minor updates and API tweaks needed for bugzilla.redhat.com.
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61508981
Note: - Here is a fix for the rpmlint issues: https://github.com/juhp/hsbugzilla/pull/3 - The package works as expected: `flip getBug 2 =<< (anonymousSession <$> newBugzillaContext "bugzilla.redhat.com") -- prints Just (Bug {bugId = 2...` Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= ===== 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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tdecacqu/1925885-ghc-bugzilla-redhat/review-ghc- bugzilla-redhat/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 3 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 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]: 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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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-bugzilla-redhat-0.3.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ghc-bugzilla-redhat-devel-0.3.1-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ghc-bugzilla-redhat-0.3.1-1.fc34.src.rpm ghc-bugzilla-redhat.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US typesafe -> type safe, type-safe, safety ghc-bugzilla-redhat.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-bugzilla-redhat-devel.x86_64: E: backup-file-in-package /usr/share/doc/ghc-bugzilla-redhat-devel/changelog.orig ghc-bugzilla-redhat.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US typesafe -> type safe, type-safe, safety 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name ghc-bugzilla-redhat (none): E: no installed packages by name ghc-bugzilla-redhat-devel 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-bugzilla-redhat: /usr/lib64/libHSbugzilla-redhat-0.3.1-DqEvvlWtzN8FrHHnYKHZhM-ghc8.8.4.so Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/bugzilla-redhat-0.3.1/bugzilla-redhat-0.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3be2b5afc3cca9e15d094a8628e4c8e44ee4a7f04f99943a78db764ecb501e21 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3be2b5afc3cca9e15d094a8628e4c8e44ee4a7f04f99943a78db764ecb501e21 Requires -------- ghc-bugzilla-redhat (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSaeson-1.4.7.1-27FHg4BkJrm9lkk8tZZzUQ-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSattoparsec-0.13.2.4-6pdJvsCYDtQ1ZikLcQPH6i-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.13.0.0-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSblaze-builder-0.4.1.0-82SjfGnhHM1L0mrMMN11qB-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.10.10.1-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSconnection-0.3.1-CHaF6WlIRfF7NTnsRYtcdi-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.5.3-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHShashable-1.3.0.0-AOP4LTmShW4Dax9brHgY53-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHShttp-client-0.6.4.1-HQHHmtTk17LFbkb29RDOTU-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHShttp-client-tls-0.3.5.3-D8QLMdujeszFsBwbmUASnb-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHShttp-types-0.12.3-91k63qdLQk0H6CBqDfaGkl-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-1.0.2.0-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSiso8601-time-0.1.5-6KbR3Vy28m7LQzmguAd9oY-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSresourcet-1.2.4.2-BShiHv2u3v34Zgdp68CuDV-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSscientific-0.3.6.2-3iE4kipzL1vRpFMF3BBSu-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHStext-1.2.4.0-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.9.3-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSunliftio-core-0.1.2.0-BfjjiCuGdFfJICKMeUQye4-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSunordered-containers-0.2.10.0-C5eTAtH5LKm2scoBCFkX6h-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSvector-0.12.1.2-9VBjzXNvxb1HpDzhLcvAe5-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-bugzilla-redhat-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-bugzilla-redhat(x86-64) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(aeson-1.4.7.1-27FHg4BkJrm9lkk8tZZzUQ) ghc-devel(base-4.13.0.0) ghc-devel(blaze-builder-0.4.1.0-82SjfGnhHM1L0mrMMN11qB) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.10.1) ghc-devel(connection-0.3.1-CHaF6WlIRfF7NTnsRYtcdi) ghc-devel(containers-0.6.2.1) ghc-devel(http-conduit-2.3.7.3-As1shtZuOVlVXi6ATFVK6) ghc-devel(http-types-0.12.3-91k63qdLQk0H6CBqDfaGkl) ghc-devel(iso8601-time-0.1.5-6KbR3Vy28m7LQzmguAd9oY) ghc-devel(resourcet-1.2.4.2-BShiHv2u3v34Zgdp68CuDV) ghc-devel(text-1.2.4.0) ghc-devel(time-1.9.3) ghc-devel(transformers-0.5.6.2) ghc-devel(unordered-containers-0.2.10.0-C5eTAtH5LKm2scoBCFkX6h) ghc-devel(vector-0.12.1.2-9VBjzXNvxb1HpDzhLcvAe5) Provides -------- ghc-bugzilla-redhat: ghc-bugzilla-redhat ghc-bugzilla-redhat(x86-64) libHSbugzilla-redhat-0.3.1-DqEvvlWtzN8FrHHnYKHZhM-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) ghc-bugzilla-redhat-devel: ghc-bugzilla-redhat-devel ghc-bugzilla-redhat-devel(x86-64) ghc-bugzilla-redhat-static ghc-bugzilla-redhat-static(x86-64) ghc-devel(bugzilla-redhat-0.3.1-DqEvvlWtzN8FrHHnYKHZhM) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n ghc-bugzilla-redhat Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Haskell, Generic Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, PHP, Python, Ocaml, fonts, Java, R, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks! I think I will drop changelog.orig from the rpm package - it doesn't really serve any useful purpose
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #3) > I think I will drop changelog.orig from the rpm package - it doesn't really > serve any useful purpose Or rather from the .cabal file even.
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-bugzilla-redhat/ghc-bugzilla-redhat.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-bugzilla-redhat/ghc-bugzilla-redhat-0.3.1-1.fc33.src.rpm fixed package urls just for completeness
Thank you for the review, Tristan https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32054
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-bugzilla-redhat
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32065 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32066
FEDORA-2021-cdf02c8d5a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-cdf02c8d5a
FEDORA-2021-6b70a3434e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6b70a3434e
FEDORA-2021-cdf02c8d5a 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-cdf02c8d5a \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-cdf02c8d5a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-6b70a3434e has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-6b70a3434e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-6b70a3434e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-cdf02c8d5a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-6b70a3434e has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.