haskell-devel December 2010

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
224 discussions

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 652573] Review Request: ghc-zip-archive - Haskell zip-archive library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

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=652573 --- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2010-12-06 06:42:06 EST --- Created attachment 464957 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=464957 patch to fix up rpmlint warning, added COPYING to the base rpm -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 652576] Review Request: ghc-texmath - Haskell texmathml library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

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=652576 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 652573] Review Request: ghc-zip-archive - Haskell zip-archive library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

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=652573 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 652571] Review Request: ghc-digest - cryptographic hashes of bytestrings
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

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=652571 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2010-12-06 05:28:45 EST --- [+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint -i ghc-digest.spec ghc-digest-0.0.0.8-1.fc14.i686.rpm ghc-digest-0.0.0.8-1.fc14.src.rpm ghc-digest-devel-0.0.0.8-1.fc14.i686.rpm ghc-digest-prof-0.0.0.8-1.fc14.i686.rpm ghc-digest.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-digest.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bytestrings -> byte strings, byte-strings, shoestrings The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-digest.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-digest.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-digest.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bytestrings -> byte strings, byte-strings, shoestrings The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-digest.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-digest-devel.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-digest-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bytestrings -> byte strings, byte-strings, shoestrings The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-digest-devel.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-digest-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-digest-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-digest-prof.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bytestrings -> byte strings, byte-strings, shoestrings The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-digest-prof.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US zlib -> lib, glib, z lib The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-digest-prof.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-digest-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.3/digest-0.0.0.8/libHSdigest-0.0.0.8_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. 4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings. [+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. Naming-Yes Version-release - Matches License - OK, BSD 2 clause variant No prebuilt external bits - OK Spec legibity - OK Package template - OK Arch support - OK Libexecdir - OK rpmlint - yes changelogs - OK Source url tag - OK, validated. Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK %clean is ignored - present anyway. OK Build Requires list - OK, only c dependencies Summary and description - OK API documentation - OK, present in devel package [+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. BSD two clause variant [+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual 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. [+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+]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. [~] md5sum digest-0.0.0.8.tar.gz 3a730a6439b14fb7a30bcd03c9e3f4ff digest-0.0.0.8.tar.gz [~] md5sum ~/Downloads/digest-0.0.0.8.tar.gz 3a730a6439b14fb7a30bcd03c9e3f4ff ~/Downloads/digest-0.0.0.8.tar.gz [+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Built on i686 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2596521 [+]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. [+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires. [NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro [NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. checked with rpmquery --list [NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. [+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. checked with rpmquery --whatprovides. [+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. [+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. [+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. checked with rpmlint and ls -lR [+]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA]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. [+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release} rpm -e ghc-digest error: Failed dependencies: ghc-digest = 0.0.0.8-1.fc14 is needed by (installed) ghc-digest-devel-0.0.0.8-1.fc14.i686 [NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA]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 [+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. checked with rpmquery --list and rpmquery --whatprovides [+]MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Should items [+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. Installed the package on i686. Wrote a small program to import the module Data.Digest.Adler32. Compiled and ran it. No issues. [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. cabal2spec-diff is 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 652571] Review Request: ghc-digest - cryptographic hashes of bytestrings
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 634037] Review Request: ghc-MissingH - Large utility library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

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=634037 --- Comment #9 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-12-05 23:31:48 EST --- Created attachment 464921 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=464921 ghc-MissingH.spec-2.patch Package is APPROVED. I forgot to post this little suggestion to simplify the COPYRIGHT conversion. -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 634037] Review Request: ghc-MissingH - Large utility library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

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=634037 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-12-05 22:41:42 EST --- Here is the review: +:ok, NA: not applicable MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output: ghc-MissingH.src: W: strange-permission ghc-MissingH.spec 0640L ghc-MissingH.src: W: strange-permission MissingH-1.1.0.3.tar.gz 0640L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. ghc-MissingH-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-MissingH-devel ghc-MissingH-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-MissingH-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.3/MissingH-1.1.0.3/libHSMissingH-1.1.0.3_p.a 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. [+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: The spec file name must match base package %{name} [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [+] MUST: include license files in %doc if included in source [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible. [+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release a64af1885d60523fe598b4dad086fa6e MissingH-1.1.0.3.tar.gz [+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch [+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations [NA] MUST: packages with shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates, or require a package which does create that directory. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing (except license files if necessary). [+] 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. [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [NA] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [NA] MUST: If a package has 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. [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [NA] 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. [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2645981 [+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 655965] New: ghc-hashed-storage-0.5.4 is available
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: ghc-hashed-storage-0.5.4 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=655965 Summary: ghc-hashed-storage-0.5.4 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: Unspecified OS/Version: Unspecified Status: ASSIGNED Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Severity: medium Priority: low Component: ghc-hashed-storage AssignedTo: petersen(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 0.5.4 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 0.5.3 URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/hashed-storage/ Please consult the package update guidelines before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_Release_Monitoring -- 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.

1 2

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 637108] New: ghc-haskell-src-exts-1.9.3 is available
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: ghc-haskell-src-exts-1.9.3 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=637108 Summary: ghc-haskell-src-exts-1.9.3 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: ASSIGNED Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Severity: medium Priority: low Component: ghc-haskell-src-exts AssignedTo: konrad(a)tylerc.org ReportedBy: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: konrad(a)tylerc.org, loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 1.9.3 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 1.9.0 URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/haskell-src-exts/ Please consult the package update guidelines before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_Release_Monitoring -- 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.

1 4

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 632975] New: hlint-1.8 is available
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Dec '10

06 Dec '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: hlint-1.8 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=632975 Summary: hlint-1.8 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: ASSIGNED Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Severity: medium Priority: low Component: hlint AssignedTo: konrad(a)tylerc.org ReportedBy: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: konrad(a)tylerc.org, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 1.8 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 1.7.3 URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/hlint/ Please consult the package update guidelines before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_Release_Monitoring -- 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.

1 4

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel December 2010