September 2012 - haskell-devel - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 850489] Review Request: ghc-HSH - Haskell HSH library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850489 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-HSH-2.0.4-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-HSH-2.0.4-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 850489] Review Request: ghc-HSH - Haskell HSH library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850489 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-HSH-2.0.4-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-HSH-2.0.4-2.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 850489] Review Request: ghc-HSH - Haskell HSH library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850489 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-HSH-2.0.4-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-HSH-2.0.4-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 850489] Review Request: ghc-HSH - Haskell HSH library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850489 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 854132] Review Request: ghc-show - Haskell show library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854132 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> --- [+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint -i ghc-show-0.4.1.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ghc-show-devel-0.4.1.2-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ghc-show-0.4.1.2-1.fc17.src.rpm ../ghc-show.spec ghc-show.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ShowQ -> Show Q, Show, Shows The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-show-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ShowQ -> Show Q, Show, Shows The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-show.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ShowQ -> Show Q, Show, Shows The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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, GPLv2 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. Build Requires list - OK Summary and description - OK API documentation - OK [+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. GPLv2 [+]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. LICENSE file is included. [+]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 sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. sha256sum show-0.4.1.2.tar.gz ghc-show-0.4.1.2-1.fc16.src/show-0.4.1.2.tar.gz bcb4ad34c529c47547d52debba61d0ff4b8af7ea7b0fcb2668e7d9ae648757e1 show-0.4.1.2.tar.gz bcb4ad34c529c47547d52debba61d0ff4b8af7ea7b0fcb2668e7d9ae648757e1 ghc-show-0.4.1.2-1.fc16.src/show-0.4.1.2.tar.gz [+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Built on x86_64. Koji builds for x86 and x86_64 done by packager. [+]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. [+]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. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+]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. API documentation in -devel package. [+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [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} [+]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 description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Loaded SimpleReflect in ghci. Loads fine. [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. cabal2spec-diff is OK. APPROVED. Please provide a different summary for the packages. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 831116] Review Request: ghc-MonadRandom - A random number generation Monad

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831116 Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> --- Thanks for the review. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-MonadRandom Short Description: A random number generation monad Owners: shakthimaan Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 831116] Review Request: ghc-MonadRandom - A random number generation Monad

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831116 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> --- [+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. rpmlint -i ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc17.src.rpm ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ghc-MonadRandom-devel-0.1.6-1.fc17.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-MonadRandom.spec ghc-MonadRandom.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-MonadRandom.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-MonadRandom-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 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 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. Build Requires list - OK Summary and description - OK API documentation - OK, in devel package. [+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . BSD license. [+]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. LICENSE file is included. [+]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 sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. sha256sum MonadRandom-0.1.6.tar.gz ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc16.src/MonadRandom-0.1.6.tar.gz 17e3acf24114b9fe8f5600c1fadb7d985d4559e24476911267c06963a0e04990 MonadRandom-0.1.6.tar.gz 17e3acf24114b9fe8f5600c1fadb7d985d4559e24476911267c06963a0e04990 ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc16.src/MonadRandom-0.1.6.tar.gz [+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. Built on x86_64. Koji builds for x86 and x86_64 done by packager (links provided in the review). [+]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. [+]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. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [+]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. API documentation in -devel package. [+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [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} [+]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 description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. Loaded Control.Monad.Random into ghci. Loads fine. [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. cabal2spec-diff is OK. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 850489] Review Request: ghc-HSH - Haskell HSH library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850489 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 850489] Review Request: ghc-HSH - Haskell HSH library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850489 Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> --- Thanks for the review. Will update the summary before import. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-HSH Short Description: Allows to mix shell expressions with Haskell programs Owners: shakthimaan Branches: f16 f17 f18 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 850489] Review Request: ghc-HSH - Haskell HSH library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=850489 --- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> --- Shakthi, Please provide a different summary for the package. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

11 years, 8 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel September 2012