From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 16 00:12:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:12:17 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451413] New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806160012.m5G0CHFC026342@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451413 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2008-06-15 20:12 EST ------- Please also cc fedora-haskell-list on all haskell package reviews. Thanks. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 16 00:11:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451413] New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806160011.m5G0BE8l026247@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451413 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-haskell- | |list at redhat.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, or are watching someone who is. From petersen at redhat.com Mon Jun 16 00:15:17 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:15:17 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Re: [Fedora-packaging] Haskell packages In-Reply-To: <20080614224926.GA21426@amd.home.annexia.org> References: <20080614224926.GA21426@amd.home.annexia.org> Message-ID: <4855B095.6010306@redhat.com> Richard W.M. Jones ????????: > I would certainly be willing to review Haskell packages, but I don't > know enough to write guidelines (the last time I used GHC was so long > ago, you had to download the C intermediate files for the compiler and > go through an elaborate bootstrapping procedure). I had a look at the > bug you pointed to and as you say the packages aren't in a reviewable > state at the moment. Thanks for the follow up. I think this can be discussed on the Fedora Haskell SIG. Yes we still haven't gotten to cleaning up the draft packaging guidelines, but this could help to prod that process along... :) Jens From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 16 00:41:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 20:41:29 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451413] New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806160041.m5G0fTvX030525@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451413 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |petersen at redhat.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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 16 03:35:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:35:35 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451413] New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806160335.m5G3ZZmo024692@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451413 ------- Additional Comments From bos at serpentine.com 2008-06-15 23:35 EST ------- Also, this is not the right compression library to be packaging. Please don't waste time on it, as it is unlikely to be 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 16 05:03:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:03:20 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451413] New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806160503.m5G53KGW005189@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451413 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2008-06-16 01:03 EST ------- At this point I'm not sure that the person submitting these tickets is even reading the comments, as there has been no response to any commentary and new tickets continue to pour in with the same mistakes. I'm beginning to think these are just drive-by submissions, with no intention of actually listening to any comments or maintaining these packages in Fedora. They need to stop. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 16 05:33:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 01:33:53 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451413] New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806160533.m5G5Xrqh009646@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451413 ------- Additional Comments From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp 2008-06-16 01:33 EST ------- I guess we should close all of these. As Jason says it seems the submitter will never have intention to react to us (also see bug 451397, bug 451398) -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 16 06:43:29 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:43:29 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451413] New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806160643.m5G6hTv9020590@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: New RPM SPEC file for ghc-compression package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451413 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2008-06-16 02:43 EST ------- Ok has someone contacted the submitter? I can try to contact them. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Mon Jun 16 07:54:21 2008 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:54:21 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Re: [Fedora-packaging] Haskell packages In-Reply-To: <4855B095.6010306@redhat.com> References: <20080614224926.GA21426@amd.home.annexia.org> <4855B095.6010306@redhat.com> Message-ID: <7f692fec0806160054s44b096cek1b12a314e100d16b@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 2:15 AM, Jens Petersen wrote: > Richard W.M. Jones ????????: >> >> I would certainly be willing to review Haskell packages, but I don't >> know enough to write guidelines (the last time I used GHC was so long >> ago, you had to download the C intermediate files for the compiler and >> go through an elaborate bootstrapping procedure). I had a look at the >> bug you pointed to and as you say the packages aren't in a reviewable >> state at the moment. > > Thanks for the follow up. > > I think this can be discussed on the Fedora Haskell SIG. Yes we still > haven't gotten to cleaning up the draft packaging guidelines, but this could > help to prod that process along... :) The core part of the guidelines are mostly done. They just need comments, and a stamp of approval. My only problem is that Red Hat's been keeping me busy with things lately. -Yaakov From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 16 11:07:17 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:07:17 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451413] Review Request: ghc-compression - Common compression algorithms for GHC Haskell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806161107.m5GB7HwW013717@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-compression - Common compression algorithms for GHC Haskell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451413 paul at city-fan.org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|New RPM SPEC file for ghc- |Review Request: ghc- |compression package |compression - Common | |compression algorithms for | |GHC Haskell -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 17 15:11:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:11:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806171511.m5HFBE6R004270@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora at krishnan.cc ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2008-06-17 11:11 EST ------- *** Bug 451149 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 17 15:59:09 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 11:59:09 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451413] Review Request: ghc-compression - Common compression algorithms for GHC Haskell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806171559.m5HFx90H027671@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-compression - Common compression algorithms for GHC Haskell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451413 tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |NotReady -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bos at serpentine.com Tue Jun 17 21:33:29 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:33:29 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] GHC 6.8.3 is out, but I can't package it up Message-ID: I can't issue a new GHC package due to a lack of a compatible version of Haddock, so if you are a Fedora package reviewer and have a few moments to spare, please review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451142 Thanks. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 17 21:31:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:31:26 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451872] New: Package request: ghc-6.8.3 Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451872 Summary: Package request: ghc-6.8.3 Product: Fedora Version: 9 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: ghc AssignedTo: bos at serpentine.com ReportedBy: bos at serpentine.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-haskell- list at redhat.com,loupgaroublond at gmail.com,petersen at redhat .com This is a bugfix release: http://haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.8.3/html/users_guide/release-6-8-3.html -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 17 21:31:46 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 17:31:46 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451872] Package request: ghc-6.8.3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806172131.m5HLVkCM032051@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Package request: ghc-6.8.3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451872 bos at serpentine.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BugsThisDependsOn| |451142 -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 17 22:33:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:33:35 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451877] unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806172233.m5HMXZUX026752@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451877 bos at serpentine.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|451142 | nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From bos at serpentine.com 2008-06-17 18:33 EST ------- Tibbs suggests that Haddock doesn't need to be blocked on this. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 17 22:31:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:31:34 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451877] unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806172231.m5HMVYJe009380@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451877 bos at serpentine.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-haskell- | |list at redhat.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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jun 17 23:24:09 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:24:09 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451413] Review Request: ghc-compression - Common compression algorithms for GHC Haskell In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806172324.m5HNO93K003914@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-compression - Common compression algorithms for GHC Haskell https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451413 bos at serpentine.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |WONTFIX ------- Additional Comments From bos at serpentine.com 2008-06-17 19:24 EST ------- I am mass-closing these submissions, as they are completely useless and do not follow any of the packaging guidelines. Do not attempt to reopen them. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From miles at milessabin.com Tue Jun 17 23:41:37 2008 From: miles at milessabin.com (Miles Sabin) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:41:37 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? Message-ID: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> Hi folks, As a potential submitter of Haskell packages I'd welcome some clarification on what just happened here. >From the outside it looks like, * New submitter created BZ's for packages in good faith but without being aware of the (currently non-existent?) Haskell packaging guidelines. * Various borderline rude comments were made. * The BZ's were closed with extrordinary haste without giving the submitter a great deal of time to respond (I mean, maybe he's been away on holiday for the last few days?). Now, perhaps that's not how it really was, but I don't feel particularly motivated to do work on any packages myself unless I'm reasonably confident that I won't be on the receiving end of similar (apparently) high-handed treatment. To that end it would be very helpful if someone could outline, * What in particular that guy did wrong. * What are the most important things for a package submitter to do to ensure a successful outcome. Cheers, Miles From bos at serpentine.com Wed Jun 18 02:50:06 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 19:50:06 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Thinking about changes to ghc packaging Message-ID: One of the things that Yaakov has suggested, in his draft Haskell package management guidelines, is a simplification of the layout for Haskell library packages. I think that some time ago, there was a desire to support multiple versions of GHC installed concurrently. In all the time that we've had the infrastructure to support that more or less in place, the packaging energy to actually do anything about it has never materialised, and I think it never will. I'd like to take Yaakov's suggestion for packages and apply it to GHC itself. Instead of splitting GHC into ghc and ghc682 packages, we'd have a single ghc package that would represent the current version. I need to perform some surgery on the GHC spec file over the coming few days in any case, because it violates a few of the packaging guidelines (e.g. binaries in %{_libdir} instead of %{_libexecdir}) and has some bugs besides (it shouldn't be messing with SELinux labels in the %post script). Thoughts? From petersen at redhat.com Wed Jun 18 05:26:10 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:26:10 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Thinking about changes to ghc packaging In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48589C72.7080601@redhat.com> Bryan O'Sullivan ????????: > One of the things that Yaakov has suggested, in his draft Haskell > package management guidelines, is a simplification of the layout for > Haskell library packages. I think that some time ago, there was a > desire to support multiple versions of GHC installed concurrently. In > all the time that we've had the infrastructure to support that more or > less in place, the packaging energy to actually do anything about it > has never materialised, and I think it never will. The reason for it was not really to have multiple parallel versions in fedora trees at once but to give people a little time to update their libs and own projects to newer versions of ghc - since it has a pretty bad record on API (and of course breaking ABI with every minor release). What do we do when haskell libs won't compile with a new release (particularly for major new versions) is still an issue anyway I guess - we will get repo deps warnings anyway. So yeah basically I agree it is not needed for fedora per se since we don't plan on shipping parallel packages though users may still find it useful. Also ghc taking a long time to build so for that reason the ability to do parallel installs was quite attractive. But in the interests of simplicity and packaging guideline consistency perhaps we should get rid of it. Specially if noone else cares. ;-) :) That's some history on background to this packaging exception anyway. > I'd like to take Yaakov's suggestion for packages and apply it to GHC > itself. Instead of splitting GHC into ghc and ghc682 packages, we'd > have a single ghc package that would represent the current version. I suggest we still keep the ghc-doc and ghc-prof subpackages anyway. > I need to perform some surgery on the GHC spec file over the coming > few days in any case, because it violates a few of the packaging > guidelines (e.g. binaries in %{_libdir} instead of %{_libexecdir}) and Ok - that might have related to the versioned packages too. > has some bugs besides (it shouldn't be messing with SELinux labels in > the %post script). Right that is a hack. Jens From bos at serpentine.com Wed Jun 18 05:45:18 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:45:18 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Thinking about changes to ghc packaging In-Reply-To: <48589C72.7080601@redhat.com> References: <48589C72.7080601@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Jens Petersen wrote: > But in the interests of simplicity > and packaging guideline consistency perhaps we should get rid of it. > Specially if noone else cares. ;-) :) :-) I'll drop the split as of GHC 6.8.3, unless someone can think of a good reason to keep it within the next few days. I will make ghc obsolete ghc682, ghc681, ghc661, and ghc66, which will cover us all the way back to Fedora 6 or so. I'll also make ghc-prof obsolete ghc682-prof, ghc681-prof, ghc661-prof, and ghc66-prof. > I suggest we still keep the ghc-doc and ghc-prof subpackages anyway. Yes, definitely. >> I need to perform some surgery on the GHC spec file over the coming >> few days in any case, because it violates a few of the packaging >> guidelines (e.g. binaries in %{_libdir} instead of %{_libexecdir}) and > > Ok - that might have related to the versioned packages too. Actually, it seems to be intentional on the part of upstream, but the comments in the build files don't indicate why. >> has some bugs besides (it shouldn't be messing with SELinux labels in >> the %post script). > > Right that is a hack. I've got a bug open now to fix the appropriate SELinux policies. From petersen at redhat.com Wed Jun 18 05:49:16 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 15:49:16 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? In-Reply-To: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> References: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4858A1DC.3060208@redhat.com> Hi Miles, Thanks for raising this. I am in communicating with Rajesh offline to try to make things clearer. > * New submitter created BZ's for packages in good faith but without > being aware of the (currently non-existent?) Haskell packaging > guidelines. Yes, well-intended I know. I hope he may still pick up some of them again starting with a single package first though. > * Various borderline rude comments were made. I agree the communication could have been better though he may not be following comments in bz or the ml's closely. > * The BZ's were closed with extrordinary haste without giving the > submitter a great deal of time to respond (I mean, maybe he's been > away on holiday for the last few days?). I agree I would have preferred to keep them open a little longer. Not sure how many packages were submitted. I think Tibbs marked them not ready which would have been sufficient for now probably IMHO, but I think Bryan had concerns about the quality of the packaging and choice of libs. > Now, perhaps that's not how it really was, but I don't feel > particularly motivated to do work on any packages myself unless I'm > reasonably confident that I won't be on the receiving end of similar > (apparently) high-handed treatment. I am sure if you follow the processes correctly you will not have many problems. Feel free to ask here if you have any doubts about what you want to package, etc. > * What in particular that guy did wrong. No response in bz and not following submission process... > * What are the most important things for a package submitter to do to > ensure a successful outcome. If you follow the processes outlined on the wiki you can't go too wrong. :) The coming Haskell Packaging Guidelines should help too: I hope we cam get them submitted soon so we can avoid further ambiguities like this. Thanks, Jens From miles at milessabin.com Wed Jun 18 07:26:20 2008 From: miles at milessabin.com (Miles Sabin) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 08:26:20 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? In-Reply-To: References: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30961e500806180026s22dcf2d2m9b41a00595a922bb@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 1:11 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > Most certainly. Someone showed up from nowhere and used a Perl script > to generate spec files for 40 packages, which he then submitted en > masse. I can certainly believe that the submissions were in good > faith, but the way the submitter went about things was not okay. > > Volunteering is a two-way thing: it is important to treat newcomers > with respect and patience as they learn the ropes, provided they > display a basic modicum of clue in the first place. I was quite > annoyed to have my time wasted by a deluge of autogenerated rubbish. Auto-generation isn't a bad thing per-se, surely? Generating RPMs from cabalized packages ought to be relatively straightforward as your own cabal-rpm shows. If there was something concretely wrong with the generated packages that would be one thing, which could presumably be fixed relatively easily by improvements to the script used to create them. I hadn't realized there were as many as 40 subitted tho'. That makes a difference, certainly ... I agree with your comment that it would been better if he'd submitted one and started a discussion about his script here. Cheers, Miles From bos at serpentine.com Wed Jun 18 07:31:00 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 00:31:00 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? In-Reply-To: <30961e500806180026s22dcf2d2m9b41a00595a922bb@mail.gmail.com> References: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500806180026s22dcf2d2m9b41a00595a922bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Miles Sabin wrote: > Auto-generation isn't a bad thing per-se, surely? Right. The real problem is jumping the gun by spamming us with review requests without ever checking to see if the basic approach is even right to begin with. From miles at milessabin.com Wed Jun 18 08:01:53 2008 From: miles at milessabin.com (Miles Sabin) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:01:53 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? In-Reply-To: References: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500806180026s22dcf2d2m9b41a00595a922bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30961e500806180101j44c7e307h31f67b9ea3adf41@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Miles Sabin wrote: > >> Auto-generation isn't a bad thing per-se, surely? > > Right. The real problem is jumping the gun by spamming us with review > requests without ever checking to see if the basic approach is even > right to begin with. OK, but aside from the spamming, was his approach *actually wrong* as in: his script was producing broken packages, irreparably. Talking about "drive by submissions" and "junk" without giving the guy a chance to fix things seems a bit uncharitable. You're too busy right now? Fine, what harm would it have done to send him a polite note and leave things for a week or two? He's clearly enthusiastic, and with some pointers in the right direction he might make a significant contribution to getting the Fedora Haskell package landscape looking a lot more healthy than it does right now. Let's hope he comes back ... Cheers, Miles From petersen at redhat.com Thu Jun 19 00:02:10 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:02:10 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? In-Reply-To: References: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500806180026s22dcf2d2m9b41a00595a922bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4859A202.80502@redhat.com> Bryan O'Sullivan ????????: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 12:26 AM, Miles Sabin wrote: > >> Auto-generation isn't a bad thing per-se, surely? > > Right. [..] Any plans to submit cabal2rpm to Fedora btw? Jens From bos at serpentine.com Thu Jun 19 00:17:12 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:17:12 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? In-Reply-To: <4859A202.80502@redhat.com> References: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500806180026s22dcf2d2m9b41a00595a922bb@mail.gmail.com> <4859A202.80502@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Jens Petersen wrote: > Any plans to submit cabal2rpm to Fedora btw? Yes, but I have a small matter of a book to finish first :-) From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jun 19 01:51:53 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:51:53 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451872] Package request: ghc-6.8.3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806190151.m5J1pra8011297@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Package request: ghc-6.8.3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451872 Bug 451872 depends on bug 451142, which changed state. Bug 451142 Summary: Review Request: haddock09 - documentation tool for annotated Haskell source code https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451142 What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jun 19 03:21:39 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:21:39 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 452066] New: Package update request: darcs 2 Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452066 Summary: Package update request: darcs 2 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: darcs AssignedTo: jeremy at hinegardner.org ReportedBy: bos at serpentine.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-haskell-list at redhat.com,petersen at redhat.com Darcs 2 has been available for several months, and is the supported stable version now. We should upgrade it. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jun 19 05:23:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:23:22 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 452066] Package update request: darcs 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806190523.m5J5NMS4030215@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Package update request: darcs 2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452066 ------- Additional Comments From jeremy at hinegardner.org 2008-06-19 01:23 EST ------- I started on it a couple of weeks ago and was sidetracked by work, I'll be on it again in the next couple of days. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From miles at milessabin.com Thu Jun 19 09:31:58 2008 From: miles at milessabin.com (Miles Sabin) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:31:58 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? In-Reply-To: References: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500806180026s22dcf2d2m9b41a00595a922bb@mail.gmail.com> <4859A202.80502@redhat.com> Message-ID: <30961e500806190231jbaff004jde2d591e69c2ac7f@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 1:17 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Jens Petersen wrote: > > > Any plans to submit cabal2rpm to Fedora btw? > > Yes, but I have a small matter of a book to finish first :-) I have a rough and ready spec file for it (ie. it's good enough for me personally, but probably needs some tweaking for Fedora). If someone wants to volunteer to shepherd me through the process I'd be happy to submit it. Cheers, Miles From bos at serpentine.com Thu Jun 19 15:53:39 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:53:39 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? In-Reply-To: <30961e500806190231jbaff004jde2d591e69c2ac7f@mail.gmail.com> References: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500806180026s22dcf2d2m9b41a00595a922bb@mail.gmail.com> <4859A202.80502@redhat.com> <30961e500806190231jbaff004jde2d591e69c2ac7f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > I have a rough and ready spec file for it (ie. it's good enough for me > personally, but probably needs some tweaking for Fedora). The software itself actually needs a little fixing up first, for example to work with ghc 6.8.3. I won't have time to help with that, or getting you through the package submission process, for another month or so, sorry. From bos at serpentine.com Thu Jun 19 16:10:18 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:10:18 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? In-Reply-To: <30961e500806190902p400b1dfdmfd1290e672f5709d@mail.gmail.com> References: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500806180026s22dcf2d2m9b41a00595a922bb@mail.gmail.com> <4859A202.80502@redhat.com> <30961e500806190231jbaff004jde2d591e69c2ac7f@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500806190902p400b1dfdmfd1290e672f5709d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > OK, no problem, but how about then? It'd probably be marginally > quicker for you to do it yourself, but on the other hand it'd get me > up and running with the process. By all means, go ahead, just don't expect the software that you're packaging to actually be useful just yet :-) From miles at milessabin.com Thu Jun 19 16:02:19 2008 From: miles at milessabin.com (Miles Sabin) Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 17:02:19 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? In-Reply-To: References: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500806180026s22dcf2d2m9b41a00595a922bb@mail.gmail.com> <4859A202.80502@redhat.com> <30961e500806190231jbaff004jde2d591e69c2ac7f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30961e500806190902p400b1dfdmfd1290e672f5709d@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: >> I have a rough and ready spec file for it (ie. it's good enough for me >> personally, but probably needs some tweaking for Fedora). > > The software itself actually needs a little fixing up first, for > example to work with ghc 6.8.3. I won't have time to help with that, > or getting you through the package submission process, for another > month or so, sorry. OK, no problem, but how about then? It'd probably be marginally quicker for you to do it yourself, but on the other hand it'd get me up and running with the process. I have about half a dozen packages which I really ought to get underway (GOA, lambdabot and their dependencies). Cheers, Miles From petersen at redhat.com Thu Jun 19 23:52:26 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 09:52:26 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions? In-Reply-To: <30961e500806190902p400b1dfdmfd1290e672f5709d@mail.gmail.com> References: <30961e500806171641q2c0cfd6cr98297f98646fc3e2@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500806180026s22dcf2d2m9b41a00595a922bb@mail.gmail.com> <4859A202.80502@redhat.com> <30961e500806190231jbaff004jde2d591e69c2ac7f@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500806190902p400b1dfdmfd1290e672f5709d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <485AF13A.2010900@redhat.com> Miles Sabin ????????: > I have about half a dozen packages > which I really ought to get underway (GOA, lambdabot and their > dependencies). Cool: so how about starting with one of those first then? Jens From fedora at krishnan.cc Sun Jun 22 01:38:31 2008 From: fedora at krishnan.cc (Rajesh Krishnan) Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:38:31 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Unable to access fedora-haskell-list gzipped archives Message-ID: <200806211838.32098.fedora@krishnan.cc> Hello Fedora-haskell-list members, I just registered with this list and I was trying to download the gzipped archives on this list from: http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-haskell-list/ For example, when I try to save the following URLs using either Konqueror or using wget (on command prompt), http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-haskell-list/2008-February.txt.gz http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-haskell-list/2008-March.txt.gz I get repeated connection breaks and/or the downloaded files are corrupted. Could someone check the gzipped archive files are are all right? Thank you. -Rajesh From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Jun 22 10:55:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 06:55:06 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451877] unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806221055.m5MAt6To028498@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451877 dwalsh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |drepper at redhat.com ------- Additional Comments From dwalsh at redhat.com 2008-06-22 06:55 EST ------- Why doesn't haddock fix their code to not need execmem? Is this java or mono? What does haddock need both executable and writeable memory at the same time? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From petersen at redhat.com Sun Jun 22 22:58:12 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:58:12 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Unable to access fedora-haskell-list gzipped archives In-Reply-To: <200806211838.32098.fedora@krishnan.cc> References: <200806211838.32098.fedora@krishnan.cc> Message-ID: <485ED904.8090703@redhat.com> Rajesh Krishnan ????????: > I just registered with this list and I was trying to download the gzipped > archives on this list from: Thanks > For example, when I try to save the following URLs using either Konqueror or > using wget (on command prompt), > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-haskell-list/2008-February.txt.gz > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-haskell-list/2008-March.txt.gz > > I get repeated connection breaks and/or the downloaded files are corrupted. I can open them ok from firefox. Can you try again? Those archives are actually really small: you might find it quicker just to browse them through the web. Jens From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Jun 22 22:59:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 18:59:28 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451877] unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806222259.m5MMxSn2012315@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451877 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2008-06-22 18:59 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Is this java or mono? Haskell ;) -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From petersen at redhat.com Mon Jun 23 01:32:44 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 11:32:44 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] failed to build gtk2hs Message-ID: <485EFD3C.2020109@redhat.com> I tried to update gtk2hs now that ghc-6.8.3 is in devel. The build fails like this: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=675810&name=build.log while trying to build c2hs. Perhaps we need to backport from upstream darcs to get it through? I may try that some point later. Jens From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 23 01:57:22 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 21:57:22 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451877] unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806230157.m5N1vM8r022777@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451877 bos at serpentine.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |452440 nThis| | -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 23 02:07:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:07:41 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451877] unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806230207.m5N27fOe024862@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451877 ------- Additional Comments From bos at serpentine.com 2008-06-22 22:07 EST ------- The runtime system for programs compiled by GHC generates code dynamically and executes it. The interaction with SELinux's enforcing mode is a known problem, which was previously addressed with a hack: the %post scripts for Haskell programs were using chcon to add unconfined_exec_mem_t. This obviously didn't work in lots of circumstances, hence wanting to apply the policy properly. The underlying problem, namely the way GHC allocates memory that it intends to execute dynamically, should be fixed within the next six months or so. See http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/738 for details. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jun 23 03:20:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2008 23:20:26 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 452066] Package update request: darcs 2 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200806230320.m5N3KQU1020120@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Package update request: darcs 2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452066 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|jeremy at hinegardner.org |petersen at redhat.com Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2008-06-22 23:20 EST ------- darcs-2.0.0-1.fc10 is built. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From petersen at redhat.com Mon Jun 23 06:50:20 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 16:50:20 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] haddock build failed Message-ID: <485F47AC.4070804@redhat.com> I updated haddock/devel for the new ghc. Unfortunately this build also failed: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=676017&name=build.log Jens From bos at serpentine.com Mon Jun 23 15:03:54 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 08:03:54 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] ghc status update Message-ID: Various things are broken as a result of the upgrade to 6.8.3 in rawhide. I haven't backported 6.8.3 to F-9 yet, so it's not affected. The problems I know of all have Bugzilla reports. ghc-doc is missing Haddock docs. haddock 2.0 doesn't work with 6.8.3, and can't be rebuild against it. gtk2hs doesn't rebuild against 6.8.3. I'm going to try to sort out the ghc-doc problem today. Tomorrow I go on vacation until the 13th, so I won't be fixing anything then :-) From miles at milessabin.com Tue Jun 24 06:49:29 2008 From: miles at milessabin.com (Miles Sabin) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 07:49:29 +0100 Subject: Various packages (WAS: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions?) Message-ID: <30961e500806232349q1e6f683bh929784c0f737a74a@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Jens Petersen wrote: > Miles Sabin ????????: > > I have about half a dozen packages which I really ought to get underway > > (GOA, lambdabot and their dependencies). > > Cool: so how about starting with one of those first then? OK, I have the following, ghc682-agda-2.1.3-0.20080311.fc8 ghc682-arrows-0.4-1.fc8 ghc682-binary-0.4.1-1.fc8 ghc682-goa-3.0-1.fc8 ghc682-http-3001.0.4-1.fc8 ghc682-oeis-0.1-1.fc8 ghc682-plugins-1.1-0.20080311.fc8 ghc682-quickcheck-2.0-1.fc8 ghc682-stream-0.2.3-1.fc8 ghc682-zlib-0.4.0.4-1.fc8 zlib seems like being the obvious starting point. So, the administration. I've looked at the instructions here, https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join I've already created myself a Fedora project account, but I haven't yet completed a CLA or found a sponsor. It looks as tho' my next steps are to put the package up on some webspace somewhere and create a review request in bugzilla. Before I do that I'd like to make sure that what I've done matches the current Haskell packaging guidelines. The most recent of those that I've been able to find are here, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell Are these current? And how closely does the most recent cabal-rpm conform to them (I have 0.3.3)? I think it would also make sense for me to join the Fedora Haskell SIG ... Am I right that I just add my name at the bottom of the page here, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Haskell Cheers, Miles From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Tue Jun 24 10:13:17 2008 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 12:13:17 +0200 Subject: Various packages (WAS: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions?) In-Reply-To: <30961e500806232349q1e6f683bh929784c0f737a74a@mail.gmail.com> References: <30961e500806232349q1e6f683bh929784c0f737a74a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7f692fec0806240313i7ea52f03pe4e7194f493664ae@mail.gmail.com> Hi Miles, 2008/6/24 Miles Sabin : > On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Jens Petersen wrote: >> Miles Sabin ????????: >> > I have about half a dozen packages which I really ought to get underway >> > (GOA, lambdabot and their dependencies). >> >> Cool: so how about starting with one of those first then? > > OK, I have the following, I am going to polish the guidelines this afternoon and submit them to the Packaging Comitee. I have two things to do. I have to make sure that cabal-rpm can spit out a working RPM that is conformant to the guidelines, and I have to proofread the guidelines to make sure they are sane. Once they are in shape, cabal-rpm will generate conformant spec files. If you don't mind waiting just a bit longer, I would certainly love your help in getting packages into Fedora. -Yaakov From miles at milessabin.com Tue Jun 24 10:17:49 2008 From: miles at milessabin.com (Miles Sabin) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:17:49 +0100 Subject: Various packages (WAS: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions?) In-Reply-To: <7f692fec0806240313i7ea52f03pe4e7194f493664ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <30961e500806232349q1e6f683bh929784c0f737a74a@mail.gmail.com> <7f692fec0806240313i7ea52f03pe4e7194f493664ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30961e500806240317n6d5245c5pf610e16ed2ce95ae@mail.gmail.com> 2008/6/24 Yaakov Nemoy : > I am going to polish the guidelines this afternoon and submit them to > the Packaging Comitee. I have two things to do. I have to make sure > that cabal-rpm can spit out a working RPM that is conformant to the > guidelines, and I have to proofread the guidelines to make sure they > are sane. That's great ... > Once they are in shape, cabal-rpm will generate conformant spec files. > If you don't mind waiting just a bit longer, I would certainly love > your help in getting packages into Fedora. Sounds good to me. Keep me posted. Cheers, Miles From bos at serpentine.com Tue Jun 24 13:32:44 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:32:44 -0700 Subject: Various packages (WAS: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions?) In-Reply-To: <30961e500806232349q1e6f683bh929784c0f737a74a@mail.gmail.com> References: <30961e500806232349q1e6f683bh929784c0f737a74a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: 2008/6/23 Miles Sabin : > ghc682-agda-2.1.3-0.20080311.fc8 This should properly be named agda2, I believe, since that's the upstream name. Also, due to the simplification of the ghc packaging in rawhide, these should have a plain "ghc-" prefix, without the version numbering. Good stuff otherwise. I'm glad to see these go in! From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Tue Jun 24 23:10:38 2008 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 01:10:38 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Library Packages, how should we handle devel files? Message-ID: <7f692fec0806241610h273aa7c8x6873247d2bd3a64c@mail.gmail.com> Hi List, I'm going over the packaging stuff, and I have another blocker question. rpmlint is giving me errors involving devel files being included in non devel packages. Do we need devel and non devel packages, or does it make more sense that people who need a package also need a devel package? -Yaakov From petersen at redhat.com Thu Jun 26 05:45:39 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:45:39 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] haddock build failed In-Reply-To: <485F47AC.4070804@redhat.com> References: <485F47AC.4070804@redhat.com> Message-ID: <48632D03.2080100@redhat.com> Jens Petersen ????????: > I updated haddock/devel for the new ghc. > Unfortunately this build also failed I found a fix: http://www.nabble.com/Haddock-compilation-problem-td18022005.html. and haddock-2.0.0.0-3.fc10 is now built. Jens