Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-simple-prompt/ghc-simple-prompt.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-simple-prompt/ghc-simple-prompt-0.2.2-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: The library provides prompt functions for reading user input: for example `prompt` returns the input given, `promptEnter` expects only Enter, and `yesNo` asks for confirmation. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=108454418
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6590419 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2247585-ghc-simple-prompt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06590419-ghc-simple-prompt/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated 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++/ - Changelog not in correct format. - No debuginfo package, nor a justification. - Package only available for x86_64. - No %check section in .spec. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [?]: 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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 9604 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [?]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc- simple-prompt-prof [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-simple-prompt-0.2.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ghc-simple-prompt-devel-0.2.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ghc-simple-prompt-prof-0.2.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ghc-simple-prompt-0.2.2-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp8i2ih3ju')] checks: 31, packages: 4 ghc-simple-prompt-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/simple-prompt-0.2.2/libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP.a ghc-simple-prompt-prof.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/simple-prompt-0.2.2/libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP_p.a ghc-simple-prompt.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-simple-prompt-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-simple-prompt-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/simple-prompt-0.2.2/libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ghc-simple-prompt". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ghc-simple-prompt-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ghc-simple-prompt-prof". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-simple-prompt: /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP-ghc9.4.5.so Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/simple-prompt-0.2.2/simple-prompt-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9c57c4ea05bb6ce11d4efda92c4ef8d7f74b92e7291ab474b5e3eb56b13c18d5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9c57c4ea05bb6ce11d4efda92c4ef8d7f74b92e7291ab474b5e3eb56b13c18d5 Requires -------- ghc-simple-prompt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSarray-0.5.4.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.17.1.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.11.4.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSclock-0.8.4-Kk7SFw4SNhZ8ktwfjRIPil-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.6.7-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.4.8.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSdirectory-1.3.7.1-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSexceptions-0.10.5-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSextra-1.7.14-9MsHIUa0FAo4DKg07m0mTc-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSfilepath-1.4.2.2-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSghc-bignum-1.3-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSghc-boot-th-9.4.5-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.9.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHShaskeline-0.8.2-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSmtl-2.2.2-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSpretty-1.1.3.6-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSprocess-1.6.16.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSstm-2.5.1.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHStemplate-haskell-2.19.0.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSterminfo-0.4.1.5-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.12.2-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-0.5.6.2-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSunix-2.7.3-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-simple-prompt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.17.1.0) ghc-devel(exceptions-0.10.5) ghc-devel(extra-1.7.14-9MsHIUa0FAo4DKg07m0mTc) ghc-devel(haskeline-0.8.2) ghc-devel(time-1.12.2) ghc-simple-prompt(x86-64) ghc-simple-prompt-prof (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-prof(base-4.17.1.0) ghc-prof(exceptions-0.10.5) ghc-prof(extra-1.7.14-9MsHIUa0FAo4DKg07m0mTc) ghc-prof(haskeline-0.8.2) ghc-prof(time-1.12.2) ghc-simple-prompt-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- ghc-simple-prompt: ghc-simple-prompt ghc-simple-prompt(x86-64) libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) ghc-simple-prompt-devel: ghc-devel(simple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP) ghc-simple-prompt-devel ghc-simple-prompt-devel(x86-64) ghc-simple-prompt-static ghc-simple-prompt-static(x86-64) ghc-simple-prompt-prof: ghc-prof(simple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP) ghc-simple-prompt-prof ghc-simple-prompt-prof(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name ghc-simple-prompt --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Haskell, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The review is based on the review-template provided by the poster. This is my first package review. I marked some points with ? as I am unsure what to do with them: - unversioned .so files: how to verify that they are not in the ld path. The path of the system that is used to build the package? - Should the reviewer build the package as well? Isn't that already done on Koji? - How to check for preservation of timestamps? And why would they differ? As noted under 'issues', there are currently a few shortcomings. I am not sure if this is necessarily a problem for a release, as they seem like rather minor things.
Thanks for reviewing - some comments below inline (In reply to Frank Dedden from comment #2) > - 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++/ I think this is okay since ghc is used. > - Changelog not in correct format. Could you elaborate? > - No debuginfo package, nor a justification. Currently debuginfo is disabled for Haskell, because it is generally not useful. > - Package only available for x86_64. Not sure what you mean: the Koji builds should cover all our architectures. :) The reference copr builds are only for x86_64 I think that is correct. > - No %check section in .spec. I don't think there are any tests for this library. > ===== MUST items ===== > [?]: 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. I think this is known/expected for Haskell > [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. I think this probably okay - also major artifacts are rebuilt anyway.
Thanks for the response. > > - 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++/ > > I think this is okay since ghc is used. Yes, that is what I thought. > > - Changelog not in correct format. > > Could you elaborate? Ah now I see, the changelog in the .spec does match (https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/manual-changelog/), but the changelog of the Haskell package doesn't. Obviously the one from the .spec is meant to match the format. > > - No debuginfo package, nor a justification. > > Currently debuginfo is disabled for Haskell, because it is generally not > useful. OK. > > - Package only available for x86_64. > > Not sure what you mean: the Koji builds should cover all our architectures. > :) > The reference copr builds are only for x86_64 I think that is correct. I see, the Koji build indeed has the other architectures too. > > - No %check section in .spec. > > I don't think there are any tests for this library. OK, so we just ignore this requirement? > > ===== MUST items ===== > > [?]: 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. > > I think this is known/expected for Haskell > > > [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > > files. > > I think this probably okay - also major artifacts are rebuilt anyway. OK. I'll adjust review accordingly. Please let know if there's anything else to do.
The adjusted review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [-]: Provides: bundled(gnulib) in place as required. Note: Sources not installed [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 9604 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc- simple-prompt-prof [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-simple-prompt-0.2.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ghc-simple-prompt-devel-0.2.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ghc-simple-prompt-prof-0.2.2-1.fc40.x86_64.rpm ghc-simple-prompt-0.2.2-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp8i2ih3ju')] checks: 31, packages: 4 ghc-simple-prompt-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/simple-prompt-0.2.2/libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP.a ghc-simple-prompt-prof.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/simple-prompt-0.2.2/libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP_p.a ghc-simple-prompt.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-simple-prompt-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-simple-prompt-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/simple-prompt-0.2.2/libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP_p.a 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.2 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ghc-simple-prompt". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ghc-simple-prompt-devel". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "ghc-simple-prompt-prof". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-simple-prompt: /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP-ghc9.4.5.so Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/simple-prompt-0.2.2/simple-prompt-0.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9c57c4ea05bb6ce11d4efda92c4ef8d7f74b92e7291ab474b5e3eb56b13c18d5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9c57c4ea05bb6ce11d4efda92c4ef8d7f74b92e7291ab474b5e3eb56b13c18d5 Requires -------- ghc-simple-prompt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSarray-0.5.4.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.17.1.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.11.4.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSclock-0.8.4-Kk7SFw4SNhZ8ktwfjRIPil-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.6.7-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.4.8.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSdirectory-1.3.7.1-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSexceptions-0.10.5-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSextra-1.7.14-9MsHIUa0FAo4DKg07m0mTc-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSfilepath-1.4.2.2-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSghc-bignum-1.3-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSghc-boot-th-9.4.5-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.9.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHShaskeline-0.8.2-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSmtl-2.2.2-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSpretty-1.1.3.6-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSprocess-1.6.16.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSstm-2.5.1.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHStemplate-haskell-2.19.0.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSterminfo-0.4.1.5-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.12.2-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-0.5.6.2-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSunix-2.7.3-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libtinfo.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-simple-prompt-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.17.1.0) ghc-devel(exceptions-0.10.5) ghc-devel(extra-1.7.14-9MsHIUa0FAo4DKg07m0mTc) ghc-devel(haskeline-0.8.2) ghc-devel(time-1.12.2) ghc-simple-prompt(x86-64) ghc-simple-prompt-prof (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-prof(base-4.17.1.0) ghc-prof(exceptions-0.10.5) ghc-prof(extra-1.7.14-9MsHIUa0FAo4DKg07m0mTc) ghc-prof(haskeline-0.8.2) ghc-prof(time-1.12.2) ghc-simple-prompt-devel(x86-64) Provides -------- ghc-simple-prompt: ghc-simple-prompt ghc-simple-prompt(x86-64) libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) ghc-simple-prompt-devel: ghc-devel(simple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP) ghc-simple-prompt-devel ghc-simple-prompt-devel(x86-64) ghc-simple-prompt-static ghc-simple-prompt-static(x86-64) ghc-simple-prompt-prof: ghc-prof(simple-prompt-0.2.2-j6lYqkwpbnBA9Les9cflP) ghc-simple-prompt-prof ghc-simple-prompt-prof(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name ghc-simple-prompt --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Haskell, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, fonts, PHP, Python, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-simple-prompt
Thank you for the review, Frank