December 2017 - haskell-devel - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 1266847] Review Request: ghc-extra - Extra Haskell functions

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847 --- Comment #7 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> --- You should split the doc in a separate subpackage. 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]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review /ghc-extra/review-ghc-extra/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: 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]: 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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 ===== Generic: [!]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1320960 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-extra-1.5.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm ghc-extra-devel-1.5.3-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm ghc-extra-1.5.3-1.fc28.src.rpm ghc-extra.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1266847] Review Request: ghc-extra - Extra Haskell functions

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: ghc-extra - |Review Request: ghc-extra - |Library of extra functions |Extra Haskell functions -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1266847] Review Request: ghc-extra - Library of extra functions

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Okay thanks, sorry about that: I thought I had built it locally. I am downgrading to the version from LTS 9, since that is closer to current Fedora: Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-extra/ghc-extra.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-extra/ghc-extra-1.5.3-1.fc27... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1266847] Review Request: ghc-extra - Library of extra functions

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847 --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> --- - Please use a better summary, "Extra functions I use" is quite vague. - I can't build it in Mock because it requires: Setup: Encountered missing dependencies: QuickCheck >=2.10 Only version 2.9.2 is available in Rawhide. Fortunately you're also the maintainer of that package, maybe you could bump it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1104579] Review Request: ghc-ieee754 - Utilities for dealing with IEEE floating point numbers

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104579 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> --- Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE.Tango is not marked as %license See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "AFL (v3.0)". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-ieee754/review-ghc- ieee754/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 235520 bytes in 16 files. [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]: 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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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 ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-ieee754-0.8.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm ghc-ieee754-devel-0.8.0-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm ghc-ieee754-0.8.0-1.fc28.src.rpm ghc-ieee754.x86_64: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1104579] Review Request: ghc-ieee754 - Utilities for dealing with IEEE floating point numbers

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1104579 --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thanks, updated - sorry for the delay Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-ieee754/ghc-ieee754.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-ieee754/ghc-ieee754-0.8.0-1.... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1266847] Review Request: ghc-extra - Library of extra functions

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1266847 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thanks Sorry for the delay Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-extra/ghc-extra.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-extra/ghc-extra-1.6.2-1.fc27... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1491457] Enable optional features

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491457 Bug 1491457 depends on bug 1514307, which changed state. Bug 1514307 Summary: Review Request: ghc-tasty-rerun - Run tests by filtered by the result of previous test runs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1514307 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 4 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1491457] Enable optional features

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1491457 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- git-annex-6.20170925-6.fc27 has been pushed to the Fedora 27 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1511911] Review Request: ghc-skylighting - Syntax highlighting library

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1511911 Bug 1511911 depends on bug 1502200, which changed state. Bug 1502200 Summary: Review Request: ghc-hxt - A collection of tools for processing XML with Haskell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1502200 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

6 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel December 2017