April 2019 - haskell-devel - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 1639089] Review Request: ghcid - GHCi based bare bones IDE

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1639089 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghcid-0.7.1-4.fc29 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 29. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-daa3765e47 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1607079] Review Request: ghc-wai-handler-launch - Launch a web app in the default browser

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607079 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED Fixed In Version| |ghc-wai-handler-launch-3.0. | |2.4-1.fc31 --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10953 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1120552] Review Request: ghc-websockets - A sensible and clean way to write WebSocket-capable servers in Haskell

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120552 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thank you for reviewing https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10952 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1097035] Review Request: ghc-HsSyck - Fast lightweight YAML loader and dumper

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1097035 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1120552] Review Request: ghc-websockets - A sensible and clean way to write WebSocket-capable servers in Haskell

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120552 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? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> --- - Bump to 0.12.5.3 Package approved. 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 33 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/ghc-websockets/review-ghc- websockets/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 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc- websockets [?]: 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. [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]: 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 1290240 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-websockets-0.12.5.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ghc-websockets-devel-0.12.5.2-1.fc31.x86_64.rpm ghc-websockets-0.12.5.2-1.fc31.src.rpm ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, GitHub ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jaspervdj -> jasper ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lhs -> ls, ohs, lbs ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs -> HS, sh, gs ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whatwg -> what ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib64/libHSwebsockets-0.12.5.2-6Rvr4cIU6BTEJkbLdM5yYi-ghc8.4.4.so ghc-websockets.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US https -> HTTP ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US github -> git hub, git-hub, GitHub ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jaspervdj -> jasper ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US lhs -> ls, ohs, lbs ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hs -> HS, sh, gs ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow ghc-websockets.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whatwg -> what 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 16 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1120552] Review Request: ghc-websockets - A sensible and clean way to write WebSocket-capable servers in Haskell

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1120552 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-websockets/ghc-websockets.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/ghc-websockets/ghc-websockets-0.... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1607079] Review Request: ghc-wai-handler-launch - Launch a web app in the default browser

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607079 --- Comment #6 from Gwyn Ciesla <gwync(a)protonmail.com> --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/ghc-wai-handler-launch -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 1607079] Review Request: ghc-wai-handler-launch - Launch a web app in the default browser

by bugzilla＠redhat.com

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1607079 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(petersen(a)redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/10864 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

5 years

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel April 2019