Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-crypton/ghc-crypton.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-crypton/ghc-crypton-0.32-1.fc41.src.rpm Description: A repository of cryptographic primitives. * Symmetric ciphers: AES, DES, 3DES, CAST5, Blowfish, Twofish, Camellia, RC4, Salsa, XSalsa, ChaCha. * Hash: SHA1, SHA2, SHA3, SHAKE, MD2, MD4, MD5, Keccak, Skein, Ripemd, Tiger, Whirlpool, Blake2 * MAC: HMAC, KMAC, Poly1305 * Asymmetric crypto: DSA, RSA, DH, ECDH, ECDSA, ECC, Curve25519, Curve448, Ed25519, Ed448 * Key Derivation Function: PBKDF2, Scrypt, HKDF, Argon2, BCrypt, BCryptPBKDF * Cryptographic Random generation: System Entropy, Deterministic Random Generator * Data related: Anti-Forensic Information Splitter (AFIS) If anything cryptographic related is missing from here, submit a pull request to have it added. This package strives to be a cryptographic kitchen sink that provides cryptography for everyone. Evaluate the security related to your requirements before using. Read "Crypto.Tutorial" for a quick start guide. Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=114069532
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7061558 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2266044-ghc-crypton/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07061558-ghc-crypton/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.
This is basically an upstream rename of the (Fedora) ghc-cryptonite package (upstream cryptonite: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/cryptonite). Since it is a rather large library with many cyphers, it might be easier to treat it more like a package rename review, perhaps. I should probably also compare it with the older package, which is will go away later. As I noted in devel list: this package and stack basically blocks the updating of pandoc and the move to Stackage LTS 22, so I marked it high priority now.
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-crypton/ghc-crypton.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-crypton/ghc-crypton-0.32-2.fc41.src.rpm use license tags from crytonite package
Created attachment 2019110 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7061558 to 7064316
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7064316 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2266044-ghc-crypton/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07064316-ghc-crypton/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.
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-crypton/ghc-crypton.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-crypton/ghc-crypton-0.34-2.fc41.src.rpm - update license field based on ghc-cryptonite packages - similarly make the doc subpackage arch-dependent
Created attachment 2043180 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 7064316 to 7809854
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7809854 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2266044-ghc-crypton/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07809854-ghc-crypton/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/ Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
I'll take it.
Looks good to me except for a thing that the upstream released version 1.0.0 recently while you still have 0.34 packaged. I guess this has something with API/ABI. Also another thins is a noisy rpmlnt (see below). Please comment what's going on? 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]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. [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 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 (Quite complex formulae). [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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]: 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]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: I did not test if the package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is NOT packaged (1.0.0). [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources aren't verified with gpgverify because upstream does not provie signatures. [?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Untested if the packages tries 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]: 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 ===== Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-crypton-0.34-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm ghc-crypton-devel-0.34-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm ghc-crypton-prof-0.34-2.fc41.x86_64.rpm ghc-crypton-0.34-2.fc41.src.rpm =========================================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 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 rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpfnt50g3t')] checks: 32, packages: 4 ghc-crypton-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/crypton-0.34/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH.a ghc-crypton-prof.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/crypton-0.34/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH_p.a ghc-crypton.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-crypton-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ===================================================================================================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 23 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 5.1 s ===================================================================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/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: 32, packages: 3 ghc-crypton.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so /lib64/libm.so.6 ghc-crypton.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/x86_64-linux-ghc-9.4.5/libHStemplate-haskell-2.19.0.0-ghc9.4.5.so ghc-crypton.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/x86_64-linux-ghc-9.4.5/libHSpretty-1.1.3.6-ghc9.4.5.so ghc-crypton.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/x86_64-linux-ghc-9.4.5/libHSghc-boot-th-9.4.5-ghc9.4.5.so ghc-crypton.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/x86_64-linux-ghc-9.4.5/libHSdeepseq-1.4.8.0-ghc9.4.5.so ghc-crypton.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/x86_64-linux-ghc-9.4.5/libHSarray-0.5.4.0-ghc9.4.5.so ghc-crypton.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so /lib64/libgmp.so.10 ghc-crypton.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so stg_thawArrayzh (/usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/x86_64-linux-ghc-9.4.5/libHSghc-prim-0.9.0-ghc9.4.5.so) ... <skipped more than 100 of lines> ... ghc-crypton.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so suspendThread (/usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so) ghc-crypton.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so resumeThread (/usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so) ghc-crypton-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/crypton-0.34/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH.a ghc-crypton-prof.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/crypton-0.34/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH_p.a ghc-crypton.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-crypton-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 725 errors, 2 warnings, 18 filtered, 725 badness; has taken 5.1 s Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-crypton: /usr/lib64/ghc-9.4.5/lib/libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/crypton-0.34/crypton-0.34.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4444846924ca55615fce104913a5a68675a180cfeadc350ab2b124fba1bc1ed6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4444846924ca55615fce104913a5a68675a180cfeadc350ab2b124fba1bc1ed6 Requires -------- ghc-crypton (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSarray-0.5.4.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.17.1.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSbasement-0.0.16-J8UFRjmsTYU7wBgfpjdWQn-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.11.4.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.4.8.0-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) libHSinteger-gmp-1.1-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSmemory-0.18.0-BlEEr4I2pf1C6AnGmCyaxp-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHSpretty-1.1.3.6-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libHStemplate-haskell-2.19.0.0-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-crypton-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-compiler ghc-crypton(x86-64) ghc-devel(base-4.17.1.0) ghc-devel(basement-0.0.16-J8UFRjmsTYU7wBgfpjdWQn) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.11.4.0) ghc-devel(deepseq-1.4.8.0) ghc-devel(ghc-prim-0.9.0) ghc-devel(integer-gmp-1.1) ghc-devel(memory-0.18.0-BlEEr4I2pf1C6AnGmCyaxp) ghc-crypton-prof (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-crypton-devel(x86-64) ghc-prof(base-4.17.1.0) ghc-prof(basement-0.0.16-J8UFRjmsTYU7wBgfpjdWQn) ghc-prof(bytestring-0.11.4.0) ghc-prof(deepseq-1.4.8.0) ghc-prof(ghc-prim-0.9.0) ghc-prof(integer-gmp-1.1) ghc-prof(memory-0.18.0-BlEEr4I2pf1C6AnGmCyaxp) Provides -------- ghc-crypton: ghc-crypton ghc-crypton(x86-64) libHScrypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH-ghc9.4.5.so()(64bit) ghc-crypton-devel: ghc-crypton-devel ghc-crypton-devel(x86-64) ghc-crypton-static ghc-crypton-static(x86-64) ghc-devel(crypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH) ghc-crypton-prof: ghc-crypton-prof ghc-crypton-prof(x86-64) ghc-prof(crypton-0.34-6W2MMGB8Jxx5wMC0V3cufH) Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2266044 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Haskell, Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, Python, R, Perl, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Thank you, Peter, for looking at the package. > Looks good to me except for a thing that the upstream released version 1.0.0 recently while you still have 0.34 packaged. > I guess this has something with API/ABI. Right in Fedora we are tracking Stackage.org LTS which is still on this previous version. 1.0+ will likely go into Fedora 42 (via a newer Stackage major release) - I think it contains breaking API changes. > Also another thins is a noisy rpmlnt (see below). Please comment what's going on? Right unfortunately the rpmlint errors are a known issue, which I have reported to ghc upstream: basically the GHC toolchain is a bit different to the mainstream and it is non-trivial to fix this, also there is no real impact - things actually work fine: so we have been waiving these for a while. The undefined-non-weak-symbol error is mentioned in the Haskell Packaging Guidelines <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Haskell/#_shared_and_static_library_linking>. I should get unused-direct-shlib-dependency added too, though it sounds less serious maybe. The upstream issue tracker is <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/17157>. It is annoying though since these keep coming up in these reviews: perhaps rpmlint could be made to ignore them for Haskell for now.
(In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #11) > Thank you, Peter, for looking at the package. > > > Looks good to me except for a thing that the upstream released version 1.0.0 recently while you still have 0.34 packaged. > > I guess this has something with API/ABI. > > Right in Fedora we are tracking Stackage.org LTS which is still on this > previous version. > 1.0+ will likely go into Fedora 42 (via a newer Stackage major release) - > I think it contains breaking API changes. > > > Also another thins is a noisy rpmlnt (see below). Please comment what's going on? > > Right unfortunately the rpmlint errors are a known issue, which I have > reported to ghc upstream: basically the GHC toolchain is a bit different > to the mainstream and it is non-trivial to fix this, also there is no real > impact - things actually work fine: so we have been waiving these > for a while. > > The undefined-non-weak-symbol error is mentioned in the Haskell Packaging > Guidelines > <https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Haskell/ > #_shared_and_static_library_linking>. > I should get unused-direct-shlib-dependency added too, though it sounds less > serious maybe. > The upstream issue tracker is > <https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/17157>. > It is annoying though since these keep coming up in these reviews: > perhaps rpmlint could be made to ignore them for Haskell for now. Ok, looks good to me then.
I can't find any other issues so this package is ================ === APPROVED === ================
Thank you very much for the review, Peter!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-crypton