Bug 2309209 - Review Request: ghc-select-rpms - Select a subset of RPM packages
Summary: Review Request: ghc-select-rpms - Select a subset of RPM packages
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Peter Lemenkov
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/s...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2024-09-02 15:32 UTC by Jens Petersen
Modified: 2024-12-13 16:52 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-12-13 16:52:58 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
lemenkov: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Jens Petersen 2024-09-02 15:32:31 UTC
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-select-rpms/ghc-select-rpms.spec
SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-select-rpms/ghc-select-rpms-0.1.0-1.fc42.src.rpm

Description:
A library for selecting a subset of RPM (sub)packages.

Fedora Account System Username: petersen

Comment 1 Fedora Review Service 2024-09-03 14:57:15 UTC
Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/7974539
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2309209-ghc-select-rpms/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/07974539-ghc-select-rpms/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.

Comment 2 Peter Lemenkov 2024-10-30 11:14:29 UTC
I'll review it

Comment 3 Peter Lemenkov 2024-10-30 13:54:08 UTC
A typical Haskell package - it does a lot of things with macros. I don't see any issues so here is my formal

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++/

^^^ False positive I believe.

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Development files in -devel subpackage.
[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 (MIT).
[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 does not contain desktop file (not 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.
[-]: The package is not a rename of another package.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package does not contain systemd file(s).
[-]: The package does not provide a -debuginfo subpackage.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[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 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 571 bytes in 2 files.
[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.
[x]: Latest version is packaged (0.1.0).
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources weren't verified with gpgverify.
[?]: I did not test if the package compiles and builds into binary rpms
     on all supported architectures.
[-]: %check is not present.
[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]: 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-select-rpms-0.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          ghc-select-rpms-devel-0.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          ghc-select-rpms-prof-0.1.0-1.fc42.x86_64.rpm
          ghc-select-rpms-0.1.0-1.fc42.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/tmpb6xp3v36')]
checks: 32, packages: 4

ghc-select-rpms-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/select-rpms-0.1.0/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5.a
ghc-select-rpms-prof.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/select-rpms-0.1.0/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5_p.a

^^^ This is file for Haskell packages

ghc-select-rpms.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-select-rpms-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
=============================== 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings, 18 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 1.6 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-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-select-rpms.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so /lib64/libm.so.6
...
ghc-select-rpms.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so /lib64/libgmp.so.10
...
ghc-select-rpms.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so newCAF	(/usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so)
ghc-select-rpms-prof.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/select-rpms-0.1.0/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5_p.a
ghc-select-rpms-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/select-rpms-0.1.0/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5.a
ghc-select-rpms-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-select-rpms.x86_64: W: no-documentation
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1580 errors, 2 warnings, 14 filtered, 1580 badness; has taken 2.8 s 

^^^ These thousands of issues are just fine for Haskell packages afaik.

Unversioned so-files
--------------------
ghc-select-rpms: /usr/lib64/ghc-9.6.6/lib/libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so

Source checksums
----------------
https://hackage.haskell.org/package/select-rpms-0.1.0/select-rpms-0.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a6e17234fdfdfa5d25bce5c3f9226276a7c015da1783eed68aa37f6059b0ca14
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a6e17234fdfdfa5d25bce5c3f9226276a7c015da1783eed68aa37f6059b0ca14


Requires
--------
ghc-select-rpms (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    libHSGlob-0.10.2-KhBMbR5Vodt8DKWzJ50ndn-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSansi-terminal-1.0.2-BAf8I876hPhJFEtshgOsOs-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSansi-terminal-types-0.11.5-EqlSjsBzg08BPCkB2XI47w-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSarray-0.5.6.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSbase-4.18.2.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSbinary-0.8.9.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSbytestring-0.11.5.3-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSclock-0.8.4-3296s51dIjRIlLWyVuI7gw-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHScolour-2.3.6-Dv7015zVt5k10e0N0YtJJm-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHScontainers-0.6.7-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSdeepseq-1.4.8.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSdirectory-1.3.8.5-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSdlist-1.0-7vDlnn0Hdvg35SyXLwMaWr-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSexceptions-0.10.7-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSextra-1.7.16-7qPYtUEmtRSH3WrnonFiW7-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSfilepath-1.4.300.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSghc-bignum-1.3-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSghc-boot-th-9.6.6-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSghc-prim-0.10.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHShaskeline-0.8.2.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSmtl-2.3.1-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSoptparse-applicative-0.18.1.0-4mpzPJ7fRrN8xZM2uyySPB-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSpretty-1.1.3.6-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSprettyprinter-1.7.1-CDxAO72IL6lFavjzsDUSDp-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSprettyprinter-ansi-terminal-1.1.3-2aRKmklopxR2DFvJh8mNr2-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSprocess-1.6.19.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSrpm-nvr-0.1.2-2jNBE3rDPwiHJUfDsW8btO-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSsafe-0.3.21-F46Xmb3LoXlCc8daI6vSkg-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSsimple-cmd-0.2.7-J13hOnoZBNDDLH005cOk1E-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSsimple-cmd-args-0.1.8-GCsswHhgzaj8WBOM4trKkS-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSsimple-prompt-0.2.3-3YCDIBYXPc978tHx43draC-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSstm-2.5.1.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHStemplate-haskell-2.20.0.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSterminfo-0.4.1.6-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHStext-2.0.2-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHStime-1.12.2-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHStransformers-0.6.1.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHStransformers-compat-0.7.2-LmnlcpbfHuuAOWEWPuyobH-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libHSunix-2.8.4.0-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)
    libc.so.6()(64bit)
    libgmp.so.10()(64bit)
    libm.so.6()(64bit)
    libtinfo.so.6()(64bit)
    rtld(GNU_HASH)

ghc-select-rpms-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ghc-compiler
    ghc-devel(Glob-0.10.2-KhBMbR5Vodt8DKWzJ50ndn)
    ghc-devel(base-4.18.2.1)
    ghc-devel(directory-1.3.8.5)
    ghc-devel(extra-1.7.16-7qPYtUEmtRSH3WrnonFiW7)
    ghc-devel(filepath-1.4.300.1)
    ghc-devel(rpm-nvr-0.1.2-2jNBE3rDPwiHJUfDsW8btO)
    ghc-devel(safe-0.3.21-F46Xmb3LoXlCc8daI6vSkg)
    ghc-devel(simple-cmd-0.2.7-J13hOnoZBNDDLH005cOk1E)
    ghc-devel(simple-cmd-args-0.1.8-GCsswHhgzaj8WBOM4trKkS)
    ghc-devel(simple-prompt-0.2.3-3YCDIBYXPc978tHx43draC)
    ghc-select-rpms(x86-64)

ghc-select-rpms-prof (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    ghc-prof(Glob-0.10.2-KhBMbR5Vodt8DKWzJ50ndn)
    ghc-prof(base-4.18.2.1)
    ghc-prof(directory-1.3.8.5)
    ghc-prof(extra-1.7.16-7qPYtUEmtRSH3WrnonFiW7)
    ghc-prof(filepath-1.4.300.1)
    ghc-prof(rpm-nvr-0.1.2-2jNBE3rDPwiHJUfDsW8btO)
    ghc-prof(safe-0.3.21-F46Xmb3LoXlCc8daI6vSkg)
    ghc-prof(simple-cmd-0.2.7-J13hOnoZBNDDLH005cOk1E)
    ghc-prof(simple-cmd-args-0.1.8-GCsswHhgzaj8WBOM4trKkS)
    ghc-prof(simple-prompt-0.2.3-3YCDIBYXPc978tHx43draC)
    ghc-select-rpms-devel(x86-64)



Provides
--------
ghc-select-rpms:
    ghc-select-rpms
    ghc-select-rpms(x86-64)
    libHSselect-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5-ghc9.6.6.so()(64bit)

ghc-select-rpms-devel:
    ghc-devel(select-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5)
    ghc-select-rpms-devel
    ghc-select-rpms-devel(x86-64)
    ghc-select-rpms-static
    ghc-select-rpms-static(x86-64)

ghc-select-rpms-prof:
    ghc-prof(select-rpms-0.1.0-DnXxjYqacHrJpc6mP0sNl5)
    ghc-select-rpms-prof
    ghc-select-rpms-prof(x86-64)



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2309209
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Haskell, Generic, C/C++
Disabled plugins: PHP, Perl, Java, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, fonts, R
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


This package is

================
=== APPROVED ===
================

Comment 4 Jens Petersen 2024-11-13 15:13:40 UTC
Thank you very much, Peter

I saw you had approved, but I was waiting to do some tweaks to fbrnch before importing.
Hoping to do that soon and also to look at any of your remaining open reviews.

Comment 5 Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions 2024-11-26 16:17:27 UTC
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-select-rpms

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2024-12-13 16:16:45 UTC
FEDORA-2024-61894e6b8d (fbrnch-1.6-23.fc42, ghc-bodhi-0.1.0-23.fc42, and 3 more) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-61894e6b8d

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2024-12-13 16:52:58 UTC
FEDORA-2024-61894e6b8d (fbrnch-1.6-23.fc42, ghc-bodhi-0.1.0-23.fc42, and 3 more) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.