February 2010 - haskell-devel - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[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

1
6
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517197] New: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library

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: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517197 Summary: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bos(a)serpentine.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Depends on: 517155 Classification: Fedora Bryan O'Sullivan <bos(a)serpentine.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? Spec: http://www.serpentine.com/bos/files/ghc-GLUT.spec SRPM: http://www.serpentine.com/bos/files/ghc-GLUT-2.1.1.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: This package provides the Haskell GLUT library for ghc. This is a set of bindings to the C freeglut library. -- 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, 6 months

1
13
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 503250] New: Review Request: ghc-utf8-string - Support reading and writing UTF8 Strings

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: Review Request: ghc-utf8-string - Support reading and writing UTF8 Strings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503250 Summary: Review Request: ghc-utf8-string - Support reading and writing UTF8 Strings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Status Whiteboard: NotReady Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Clone Of: 426750 Spec URL: http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-hinotify.spec SRPM URL: http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-utf8-string-0.3.4-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: This library provides a wrapper to the Linux Kernel's inotify feature,allowing applications to subscribe to notifications when a file is accessed or modified. -- 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, 7 months

1
36
0 / 0

[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

1
6
0 / 0

[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

1
24
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 558058] Review Request: ghc-dataenc - Haskell encoding library

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=558058 Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2010-02-28 02:44:24 EST --- BAD = Please fix. N/A = Doesn't apply to this package. YES = Fine. ??? = I have some question(s). - [ YES ] MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. ghc-dataenc.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ghc-dataenc.spec: W: no-buildroot-tag ghc-dataenc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Harrell, Rathskeller, Hastily ghc-dataenc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uuencode -> encoder, encode, Unicode ghc-dataenc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xxencode -> xx encode, xx-encode, encoder ghc-dataenc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yEncoding -> y Encoding, encoding, yen coding ghc-dataenc.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ghc-dataenc.src: W: no-buildroot-tag 1 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Spelling warnings are ignorable; the other warnings are also ignorable, I think we decided. - [ YES ] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - [ YES ] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines. - [ ??? ] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. I'm curious, cabal2spec-diff wants it to be binlib, not lib. Any idea? Otherwise, looks good. - [ YES ] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. - [ YES ] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. - [ YES ] 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. - [ YES ] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - [ YES ] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest (http://www.ioccc.org/). - [ YES ] 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. sha512sum = e64138df9d2815af5ad7871ffb3d2b7199183b6991e40929d620b8d8de06f2e22a4104ac317bf485ee98018c25afef7125314fc037ec94de9ba0973f6f190198 - [ YES ] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. Tested on x86_64. - [ N/A ] 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 needs to have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so they should put this description in the comment until the package is approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation with the bug number. The bug should be marked as blocking one (or more) of the following bugs to simplify tracking such issues: FE-ExcludeArch-x86, FE-ExcludeArch-x64, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc, FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64 - [ YES ] 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. - [ N/A ] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. - [ N/A ] MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. - [ N/A ] 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. - [ YES ] 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. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. - [ YES ] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - [ YES ] 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. - [ YES ] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - [ YES ] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. - [ YES ] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. - [ YES ] MUST: Large documentation files should 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.) - [ YES ] 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. - [ YES ] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. - [ N/A ] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. - [ N/A ] MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). - [ N/A ] 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. - [ YES ] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} - [ N/A ] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. - [ N/A ] 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. This is described in detail in the desktop files section of the Packaging Guidelines. 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. - [ YES ] 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. - [ YES ] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. - [ N/A ] 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. - [ N/A ] SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. - [ YES ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See MockTricks for details on how to do this. - [ YES ] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. - [ YES ] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - [ YES ] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. - [ YES ] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. - [ N/A ] SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. - [ N/A ] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for further information. I think it's good, though I'm curious why cabal2spec thinks it should be binlib, not just lib. Anyways, if that's cabal2spec being braindead, go ahead. If it's a mistake, you can fix it before import. 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, 1 month

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 558058] Review Request: ghc-dataenc - Haskell encoding library

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=558058 Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |konrad(a)tylerc.org AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |konrad(a)tylerc.org Flag| |fedora-review? -- 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

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 558057] Review Request: ghc-binary - Haskell binary serialisation

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=558057 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-25 07:44:31 EST --- ghc-binary-0.5.0.2-1.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 558057] Review Request: ghc-binary - Haskell binary serialisation

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=558057 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-24 03:08:38 EST --- ghc-binary-0.5.0.2-1.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-binary-0.5.0.2-1.fc13 -- 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

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 558057] Review Request: ghc-binary - Haskell binary serialisation

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=558057 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-22 21:06:39 EST --- Imported and built to devel. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2007182 Thanks again -- 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

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel February 2010