[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547867] New: %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547867
Summary: %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly
Product: Fedora
Version: 11
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: high
Component: ghc-rpm-macros
AssignedTo: loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com
ReportedBy: jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com,
fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
I want to tryout ghc-6.12.1 on my system and have installed
ghc-rpm-macros-0.3.0-1 on my system.
Because I have trouble to compile my packages, I have try out the following
command:
$ rpm -q --eval '%{ghc_version}'
and got the following output:
error: Recursion depth(17) greater than max(16)
15< (empty)
14< (empty)
13< (empty)
12< (empty)
11< (empty)
10< (empty)
9< (empty)
8< (empty)
7< (empty)
6< (empty)
5< (empty)
4< (empty)
3< (empty)
2< (empty)
1< (empty)
0< (empty)
If I type
$ ghc --numeric-version
I will get
6.12.1
which I expected for
$ rpm -q --eval '%{ghc_version}'
Best Regards:
Jochen Schmitt
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
10 years, 8 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 509699] New: ~/.cabal/bin should be appended to PATH if available
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: ~/.cabal/bin should be appended to PATH if available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509699
Summary: ~/.cabal/bin should be appended to PATH if available
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: cabal-install
AssignedTo: petersen(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: petersen(a)redhat.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
Target Release: ---
Description of problem:
After installing cabal programs, it is annoying that they are not in PATH
and one has to type the fully-qualified or relative path
explicitly: eg ~/.cabal/bin/progname
I think we can append ~/.cabal/bin to user's PATH if it exists.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
13 years, 11 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 522953] New: update to darcs-2.3.0 stable cabal release
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: update to darcs-2.3.0 stable cabal release
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522953
Summary: update to darcs-2.3.0 stable cabal release
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: darcs
AssignedTo: petersen(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: petersen(a)redhat.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, jeremy(a)hinegardner.org,
fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
Target Release: ---
Description of problem:
darcs should be updated to 2.3.0 stable.
Unfortunately this requires hashed-storage and
haskeline to be added to fedora.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
14 years, 1 month
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 550711] New: ghc-GLUT-debuginfo contains no sources
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: ghc-GLUT-debuginfo contains no sources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550711
Summary: ghc-GLUT-debuginfo contains no sources
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: ghc-GLUT
AssignedTo: bos(a)serpentine.com
ReportedBy: ville.skytta(a)iki.fi
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, bos(a)serpentine.com,
loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com,
fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Blocks: 496968
Classification: Fedora
ghc-GLUT-debuginfo 2.1.1.2-3.fc13 contains no sources, which might be an
indication of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (specifically -g) not being honored or binaries
being stripped too early. Is this expected behavior with ghc-* packages? See
bug 496968.
Same thing apparently with recent ghc-OpenGL, ghc-tar, and ghc-zlib Rawhide
builds.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
14 years, 3 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 537979] Review Request: ghc-hashed-storage - Hashed file storage support
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537979
Lorenzo Villani <lvillani(a)binaryhelix.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Villani <lvillani(a)binaryhelix.net> 2009-12-31 11:24:08 EDT ---
Ignore numbers in square brackets.
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.[1]
Unable to build the package locally with the required version of mmap. Can you
try to bump the spec to build a newer version?
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
BSD (3 clause) is a valid license.
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
BSD is a valid short name for the 3-clause license.
# MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
OK
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[lvillani@normandy tmp]$ md5sum hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz
hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz.1
8310b334aa0464f7a72d27c45b042dfd hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz
8310b334aa0464f7a72d27c45b042dfd hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz.1
(.1 is the tarball downloaded from upstream website)
OK.
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
NOT OK: The specfile is missing a dependency on ghc-mmap-{devel,prof}
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
Static libraries: OK
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
OK
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [14]
OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
OK
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]
OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]
OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]
OK
# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [19]
OK
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present. [19]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20]
OK
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21]
Exception: GHC 6.10 creates only statically linked libraries -> OK
# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [22]
OK
# MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package. [20]
OK (No shared libraries with GHC)
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [23]
OK
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[21]
OK (we don't use libtool)
# MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[24]
OK (not a GUI application)
# MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [25]
# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]
Unable to build package.
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27]
Unable to build package.
Not approving, yet.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
14 years, 3 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 537971] Review Request: ghc-mmap - Haskell binding to mmap
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537971
Lorenzo Villani <lvillani(a)binaryhelix.net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ON_DEV
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Villani <lvillani(a)binaryhelix.net> 2009-12-31 11:01:11 EDT ---
Please ignore numbers in square brackets.
# MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
[lvillani@normandy tmp]$ rpmlint
/home/lvillani/devel/rpm/rpms/x86_64/ghc-mmap-devel-0.4.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
/home/lvillani/devel/rpm/rpms/x86_64/ghc-mmap-doc-0.4.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
/home/lvillani/devel/rpm/rpms/x86_64/ghc-mmap-prof-0.4.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm
ghc-mmap-0.4.1-1.fc12.src.rpm
ghc-mmap-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-mmap-devel
ghc-mmap-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-mmap-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.4/mmap-0.4.1/libHSmmap-0.4.1_p.a
ghc-mmap.src: W: strange-permission mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz 0600
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
-> These are all expected errors: OK
# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
-> OK
# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
-> OK
# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
-> OK
# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
-> BSD (3 clause) License: ok
# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
-> BSD is a valid short name for 3-clause BSD license.
# MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.[4]
-> OK
# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
-> OK
# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
-> OK
# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[lvillani@normandy tmp]$ md5sum mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz.1
2ebe9772a0efd0a6febfbc67c02faab2 mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz
2ebe9772a0efd0a6febfbc67c02faab2 mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz.1
(.1 comes from upstream) -> OK
# MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. [7]
-> OK
# MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
-> OK
# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
-> OK
# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9]
-> OK
# MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library
files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
-> No shared libraries: OK
# MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
-> OK
# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
-> OK
# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
-> OK
# MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. [14]
-> OK
# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. [15]
-> OK
# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16]
-> OK
# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17]
-> OK
# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18]
-> OK
# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition
of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [19]
-> OK
# MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present. [19]
-> OK
# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20]
-> OK
# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21]
-> Exception: All libraries produced by GHC (6.10) are statically linked -> OK
# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability). [22]
-> OK
# MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package. [20]
-> OK
# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release} [23]
-> OK
# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[21]
-> OK
# MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need
a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[24]
-> OK
# MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. [25]
-> OK
# MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26]
-> OK
# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
-> OK
** APPROVED **
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
14 years, 3 months