https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266044 --- Comment #10 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- 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 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2266044 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202266044%23c10 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
