Spec URL: https://petersen@petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-pretty-terminal/ghc-pretty-terminal.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen@petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-pretty-terminal/ghc-pretty-terminal-0.1.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm Description: Useful helpers to style and color text with ANSI escape sequences. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61510383
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-pretty-terminal/ghc-pretty-terminal.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-pretty-terminal/ghc-pretty-terminal-0.1.0.0-1.fc33.src.rpm fixed the package urls
Let me review this :)
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++/ - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/test/1925891-ghc- pretty-terminal/diff.txt See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ ===== 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", "[generated file]". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/test/1925891-ghc-pretty- terminal/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/ghc(ghc- filepath-bytestring-doc, <Snip this large output here> ghc-HsYAML-doc, ghc-url-doc, ghc-deepseq-doc) [ ]: %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]: 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). [?]: 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. [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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Bad spec filename: /home/test/1925891-ghc-pretty-terminal/srpm- unpacked/ghc-pretty-terminal.spec See: (this test has no URL) [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-pretty-terminal-0.1.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ghc-pretty-terminal-devel-0.1.0.0-1.fc34.x86_64.rpm ghc-pretty-terminal-0.1.0.0-1.fc34.src.rpm ghc-pretty-terminal.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libHSpretty-terminal-0.1.0.0-GUuZNjpSyHxGSXmVcH2mjg-ghc8.8.4.so ghc-pretty-terminal.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-pretty-terminal-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary example 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ghc-pretty-terminal-devel.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary example <Snip> bugzilla cannot accept above 65535 lines hence removing library-not-linked-against-libc warning lines like below <Snip> ghc-pretty-terminal.x86_64: W: library-not-linked-against-libc /usr/lib64/libHSpretty-terminal-0.1.0.0-GUuZNjpSyHxGSXmVcH2mjg-ghc8.8.4.so ghc-pretty-terminal.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 623 warnings. Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-pretty-terminal: /usr/lib64/libHSpretty-terminal-0.1.0.0-GUuZNjpSyHxGSXmVcH2mjg-ghc8.8.4.so Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/pretty-terminal-0.1.0.0/pretty-terminal.cabal#/pretty-terminal-0.1.0.0.cabal : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 75c99c5e1bdf827de70f29bd7e588e3b06719a201caf4ad68bf575c049a96361 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e9135d86ebb2a8e3aaf5a79088de4628dbd49988388e0fbfc26c5ecb3c399ad9 https://hackage.haskell.org/package/pretty-terminal-0.1.0.0/pretty-terminal-0.1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8e76f74c84fc7039845b8915dbe91e852673ca17047871c304fc0b491eaf2567 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8e76f74c84fc7039845b8915dbe91e852673ca17047871c304fc0b491eaf2567 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- ghc-pretty-terminal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSbase-4.13.0.0-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.5.3-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) libHStext-1.2.4.0-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-pretty-terminal-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.13.0.0) ghc-devel(text-1.2.4.0) ghc-pretty-terminal(x86-64) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libffi.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ghc-pretty-terminal: ghc-pretty-terminal ghc-pretty-terminal(x86-64) libHSpretty-terminal-0.1.0.0-GUuZNjpSyHxGSXmVcH2mjg-ghc8.8.4.so()(64bit) ghc-pretty-terminal-devel: ghc-devel(pretty-terminal-0.1.0.0-GUuZNjpSyHxGSXmVcH2mjg) ghc-pretty-terminal-devel ghc-pretty-terminal-devel(x86-64) ghc-pretty-terminal-static ghc-pretty-terminal-static(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1925891 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Haskell, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Ocaml, Perl, Java, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Please fix the source checksum issue. Also I am confused why so many packages doc ownership output.
Thanks for looking over the package, Parag (In reply to Parag AN(पराग) from comment #3) > Please fix the source checksum issue. Also I am confused why so many > packages doc ownership output. Okay I realised the checksum of pretty-terminal.cabal is wrong because cabal-rpm converts it to unix format after downloading (for some reason all revised .cabal files on Hackage are in DOS format), but I can avoid this issue by converting them in %setup instead. The doc dirs ownership issue is due to transitional packaging introduced with the -doc subpackages, a couple of releases ago. Currently all library packages own /usr/share/doc/ghc{,/html{,/libraries}} (and so does ghc-compiler currently), but I think the right step forward is to add ghc-filesystem to ghc-rpm-macros and add Requires for that. I want to do that for F35 and maybe backport it to F34.
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-pretty-terminal/ghc-pretty-terminal.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-pretty-terminal/ghc-pretty-terminal-0.1.0.0-2.fc33.src.rpm - convert revised .cabal file to unix format in setup (#1925891) - remove the example executable
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=61656728
Thanks for the update. I ran the fedora-review tool on this update. checksum issue is fixed now. This package is APPROVED.
Thanks I opened bug 1926757 to track the doc dirs ownership issue.
Thank you for the review, Parag https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32067
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-pretty-terminal
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32092 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32093
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/32094
FEDORA-2021-752854ada8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-752854ada8
FEDORA-2021-326dcb479c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-326dcb479c
FEDORA-2021-326dcb479c 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-2021-326dcb479c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-326dcb479c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-752854ada8 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-2021-752854ada8 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-752854ada8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-326dcb479c has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-752854ada8 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.