From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Oct 1 23:27:59 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:27:59 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 465126] ghc-doc package has docs in wrong directory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810012327.m91NRxLG024232@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465126 Jens Petersen 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Oct 1 23:35:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 19:35:01 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 465126] ghc-doc package has docs in wrong directory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810012335.m91NZ1DH025642@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465126 --- Comment #2 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2008-10-01 19:35:00 EDT --- I suppose it isn't, in some sense, but only 3 other packages out of 1379 on my system use non-versioned directory names in /usr/share/doc. -- 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. From bos at serpentine.com Fri Oct 3 18:11:44 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 11:11:44 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 Message-ID: I have a working spec file that builds the GHC 6.10.1 beta, and the beta itself seems solid so far. What I'd like to do is push it to F-10 as soon as F-10 and 6.10.1 are both final. This will require a rebuild of ghc-gtk2hs, but nothing more. We'll need to retire the haddock package, as GHC itself now builds and installs haddock. I'll mark the GHC package as obsoleting the haddock package. We're still several weeks away from 6.10.1, by the way: there are some major changes in Cabal that need to be smoothed out so that the entire store of packages on Hackage doesn't break. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Oct 6 01:32:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 21:32:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451877] unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810060132.m961W7ZF001375@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451877 Tony Fu changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|jkubin at redhat.com |rvokal 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. From petersen at redhat.com Fri Oct 10 02:51:24 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 22:51:24 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <974892274.2382991223607084603.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Hi Bryan, Thanks for the headsup. :) > I have a working spec file that builds the GHC 6.10.1 beta, and the > beta itself seems solid so far. > What I'd like to do is push it to F-10 as soon as F-10 and 6.10.1 are > both final. This will require a rebuild of ghc-gtk2hs, but nothing > more. Cool - sounds good to push as an early f10 update. > We'll need to retire the haddock package, as GHC itself now builds and > installs haddock. I'll mark the GHC package as obsoleting the haddock > package. Ok I suggest we branch the ghc package for F-10 now so that you can go ahead with ghc-6.10 packaging in the devel branch. We should really backport 6.8.3 to F-9 too. Jens From petersen at redhat.com Fri Oct 10 08:07:05 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 04:07:05 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 In-Reply-To: <822377137.2395901223625050933.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1762389850.2397331223626025593.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> > I suggest we branch the ghc package for F-10 now so that you can go > ahead with ghc-6.10 packaging in the devel branch. I went ahead and did this now. -Jens From bos at serpentine.com Sun Oct 12 19:27:51 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:27:51 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 In-Reply-To: <974892274.2382991223607084603.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <974892274.2382991223607084603.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Jens Petersen wrote: > I suggest we branch the ghc package for F-10 now so that you can go ahead with ghc-6.10 packaging in the devel branch. I saw that you did something, but I don't have an "F-10" directory under cvs ghc. Should I be using the devel directory instead? > We should really backport 6.8.3 to F-9 too. I don't think it's worth the effort. It will force users to recompile their libraries more or less needlessly. From bos at serpentine.com Sun Oct 12 19:43:36 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:43:36 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 In-Reply-To: References: <974892274.2382991223607084603.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Jens Petersen wrote: > >> I suggest we branch the ghc package for F-10 now so that you can go ahead with ghc-6.10 packaging in the devel branch. > > I saw that you did something, but I don't have an "F-10" directory > under cvs ghc. Should I be using the devel directory instead? Someone helpful on #fedora-devel told me about "cvs up -Pd". I've got a build going now, based on the release candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=875822 From bos at serpentine.com Sun Oct 12 21:22:46 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:22:46 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Planning for the Haskell Platform Message-ID: GHC 6.10.1 will be the last release that ships with extralibs, the "metapackage" of libraries that has been comaintained with GHC since forever. In fact, extralibs will be obsoleted within the lifetime of GHC 6.10.1. Its replacement, the Haskell Platform, should be released within a month after 6.10.1 itself. The Platform will develop and be maintained on a schedule independent of GHC, so it no longer makes sense to tie the two together. Since GHC without extralibs/Platform is completely useless for practical development, we need to sort out a strategy for this pretty soon. One simple possibility: split the ghc package up now. Initially create a "ghc-platform" subpackage in the same spec file, containing extralibs. Make the ghc package depend on ghc-platform, so it will be autoinstalled by a depsolver. When the real platform is released, split ghc into toplevel ghc and ghc-platform packages, chop out the ghc-platform subpackage from the ghc spec file, but don't rebuild the ghc package (since not necessary). A build of the new ghc-platform package should supersede the old subpackage (since rpm itself doesn't seem to know about subpackages at all). Someone installing ghc after the splitup should get the old ghc and the new ghc-platform. Does this sound reasonable? The only actions required from anyone else in the next week or two are to (a) state an opinion on this and, if it's generally positive (b) for someone to review a placeholder ghc-package review request, so we can crank in a timely manner when the final platform is released. From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Sun Oct 12 21:28:39 2008 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:28:39 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 In-Reply-To: References: <974892274.2382991223607084603.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <7f692fec0810121428l57f9ad7ekc92eb6fe29c89495@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Jens Petersen wrote: > >> I suggest we branch the ghc package for F-10 now so that you can go ahead with ghc-6.10 packaging in the devel branch. > > I saw that you did something, but I don't have an "F-10" directory > under cvs ghc. Should I be using the devel directory instead? > >> We should really backport 6.8.3 to F-9 too. > > I don't think it's worth the effort. It will force users to recompile > their libraries more or less needlessly. Yes, but 6.8.2 doesn't have the macros they need. (Unless there was a build for it that I missed somewhere.) -Yaakov From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Sun Oct 12 21:29:52 2008 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 17:29:52 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Planning for the Haskell Platform In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7f692fec0810121429v511af987pee78d242325cc20a@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > GHC 6.10.1 will be the last release that ships with extralibs, the > "metapackage" of libraries that has been comaintained with GHC since > forever. > > In fact, extralibs will be obsoleted within the lifetime of GHC > 6.10.1. Its replacement, the Haskell Platform, should be released > within a month after 6.10.1 itself. The Platform will develop and be > maintained on a schedule independent of GHC, so it no longer makes > sense to tie the two together. > > Since GHC without extralibs/Platform is completely useless for > practical development, we need to sort out a strategy for this pretty > soon. > > One simple possibility: split the ghc package up now. Initially create > a "ghc-platform" subpackage in the same spec file, containing > extralibs. Make the ghc package depend on ghc-platform, so it will be > autoinstalled by a depsolver. When the real platform is released, > split ghc into toplevel ghc and ghc-platform packages, chop out the > ghc-platform subpackage from the ghc spec file, but don't rebuild the > ghc package (since not necessary). A build of the new ghc-platform > package should supersede the old subpackage (since rpm itself doesn't > seem to know about subpackages at all). Someone installing ghc after > the splitup should get the old ghc and the new ghc-platform. > > Does this sound reasonable? The only actions required from anyone else > in the next week or two are to (a) state an opinion on this and, if > it's generally positive (b) for someone to review a placeholder > ghc-package review request, so we can crank in a timely manner when > the final platform is released. +1 From bos at serpentine.com Sun Oct 12 21:22:46 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:22:46 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Planning for the Haskell Platform Message-ID: GHC 6.10.1 will be the last release that ships with extralibs, the "metapackage" of libraries that has been comaintained with GHC since forever. In fact, extralibs will be obsoleted within the lifetime of GHC 6.10.1. Its replacement, the Haskell Platform, should be released within a month after 6.10.1 itself. The Platform will develop and be maintained on a schedule independent of GHC, so it no longer makes sense to tie the two together. Since GHC without extralibs/Platform is completely useless for practical development, we need to sort out a strategy for this pretty soon. One simple possibility: split the ghc package up now. Initially create a "ghc-platform" subpackage in the same spec file, containing extralibs. Make the ghc package depend on ghc-platform, so it will be autoinstalled by a depsolver. When the real platform is released, split ghc into toplevel ghc and ghc-platform packages, chop out the ghc-platform subpackage from the ghc spec file, but don't rebuild the ghc package (since not necessary). A build of the new ghc-platform package should supersede the old subpackage (since rpm itself doesn't seem to know about subpackages at all). Someone installing ghc after the splitup should get the old ghc and the new ghc-platform. Does this sound reasonable? The only actions required from anyone else in the next week or two are to (a) state an opinion on this and, if it's generally positive (b) for someone to review a placeholder ghc-package review request, so we can crank in a timely manner when the final platform is released. From bos at serpentine.com Sun Oct 12 21:37:57 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:37:57 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Re: Planning for the Haskell Platform ... and documentation Message-ID: There's another wrinkle to this: Haddock docs. Right now, there's one standard, frozen set of HTML Haddocks in /usr/share/doc/ghc. We have the ability to generate a new index every time we install or remove a package, so that the index reflects whatever is installed. Thus installing gtk2hs would add a pile of entries to the toplevel index. This seems *really* appealing to me, and we could add it to the %post and %preun sections of a package's spec file by editing the top-level macros file that Jens recently added. One necessary change would be to install all haddock docs under /usr/share/doc/ghc, so that we could find all '*.haddock' files when reindexing, using the find command. FWIW, this is the approach currently taken by Debian for docs. From petersen at redhat.com Mon Oct 13 03:05:16 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:05:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <955222568.9701223867116739.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> > I've got a build going now, based on the release candidate: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=875822 Let's keep ghc-6.10.0 snapshot builds to the devel branch for now until 6.10.1 is released and then we can build it for f10. I retagged the builds in koji to dist-f11. Jens From petersen at redhat.com Mon Oct 13 03:12:16 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:12:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 In-Reply-To: <7f692fec0810121428l57f9ad7ekc92eb6fe29c89495@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1679028243.9931223867535996.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> > >> We should really backport 6.8.3 to F-9 too. > > > > I don't think it's worth the effort. It will force users to > recompile their libraries more or less needlessly. Hmm ok. I wonder though how many people as still using 6.8.2 though or just downloading the binary or rpm from upstream... > Yes, but 6.8.2 doesn't have the macros they need. (Unless there was > a build for it that I missed somewhere.) Right was waiting for 6.8.3 for f9 but I can push an update for the macros instead. Jens From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Mon Oct 13 03:46:42 2008 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 23:46:42 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 In-Reply-To: <1679028243.9931223867535996.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <7f692fec0810121428l57f9ad7ekc92eb6fe29c89495@mail.gmail.com> <1679028243.9931223867535996.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <7f692fec0810122046r4924bca0w7b76ae27ead911c9@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Jens Petersen wrote: >> >> We should really backport 6.8.3 to F-9 too. >> > >> > I don't think it's worth the effort. It will force users to >> recompile their libraries more or less needlessly. > > Hmm ok. I wonder though how many people as still using 6.8.2 though or just downloading the binary or rpm from upstream... > >> Yes, but 6.8.2 doesn't have the macros they need. (Unless there was >> a build for it that I missed somewhere.) > > Right was waiting for 6.8.3 for f9 but I can push an update for the macros instead. > > Jens > Please do, this way we can start pushing packages through review. -Yaakov From petersen at redhat.com Tue Oct 14 01:40:54 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:40:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Planning for the Haskell Platform In-Reply-To: <1147088509.241541223948252512.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <246783560.241961223948454533.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> > One simple possibility: split the ghc package up now. Initially > create a "ghc-platform" subpackage in the same spec file, containing > extralibs. Make the ghc package depend on ghc-platform, so it will be > autoinstalled by a depsolver. When the real platform is released, > split ghc into toplevel ghc and ghc-platform packages, chop out the > ghc-platform subpackage from the ghc spec file, but don't rebuild the > ghc package (since not necessary). A build of the new ghc-platform > package should supersede the old subpackage (since rpm itself doesn't > seem to know about subpackages at all). I'd say, why not just keep ghc+extralibs together for now until platform is available? I don't really see any big win in doing it in two stages - just looks like extra effort to me. Then when platform is released we can drop extralibs from ghc if that makes sense, and push out ghc-platform in a timely manner. :) > Someone installing ghc after > the splitup should get the old ghc and the new ghc-platform. (We can't do that anyway, since that would leave the old subpackage still in the repo: so ghc needs to be updated anyway.) I am happy to help review ghc-platform when it is ready. Will there be some pre-releases? :) Jens From petersen at redhat.com Tue Oct 14 01:48:14 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:48:14 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Re: Planning for the Haskell Platform ... and documentation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <889169770.242731223948894650.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> > Right now, there's one standard, frozen set of HTML Haddocks in > /usr/share/doc/ghc. We have the ability to generate a new index every > time we install or remove a package, so that the index reflects > whatever is installed. Thus installing gtk2hs would add a pile of > entries to the toplevel index. > > This seems *really* appealing to me, and we could add it to the %post > and %preun sections of a package's spec file by editing the top-level > macros file that Jens recently added. What does one have to do to update the index? > One necessary change would be to install all haddock docs under > /usr/share/doc/ghc, so that we could find all '*.haddock' files when > reindexing, using the find command. Sounds good to me. :-) -Jens From petersen at redhat.com Tue Oct 14 02:37:30 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 22:37:30 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 In-Reply-To: <2132145622.245851223951549087.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <2057280224.246641223951850839.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> > > I can push an update for the macros instead. Ok, I tried to build a ghc-6.8.2 update for f9 in koji: but it fails with checking for gethostent... yes configure: creating ./config.status config.status: creating network.buildinfo config.status: creating include/HsNetworkConfig.h Configuring network-2.1.0.0... rm -f network/GNUmakefile cp Makefile.local network if ifBuildable/ifBuildable network; then \ cd network && setup/Setup makefile -f GNUmakefile; \ fi Socket.hsc: In function 'main': Socket.hsc:1144: error: invalid application of 'sizeof' to incomplete type 'struct ucred' Socket.hsc:1144: error: invalid application of 'sizeof' to incomplete type 'struct ucred' Socket.hsc:1144: error: invalid application of 'sizeof' to incomplete type 'struct ucred' Socket.hsc:1150: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct ucred' Socket.hsc:1151: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct ucred' Socket.hsc:1152: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct ucred' compiling dist/build/Network/Socket_hsc_make.c failed command was: gcc -c -D__GLASGOW_HASKELL__=608 -I/builddir/build/BUILD/ghc-6.8.2/i ncludes -I/builddir/build/BUILD/ghc-6.8.2/gmp/gmpbuild -D__GLASGOW_HASKELL__=608 -DCALLCONV=ccall -Iinclude dist/build/Network/Socket_hsc_make.c -o dist/build/Network/Socket_hsc_make.o Preprocessing library network-2.1.0.0... make[1]: *** [network/GNUmakefile] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ghc-6.8.2/libraries' make: *** [stage1] Error 2 error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.17351 (%build) See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=66248 and http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=66247 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=1853 shows that ghc-6.8.2 has never built for f9... it starts to come back me now. ;) Any ideas, Bryan? The easiest way forward I can see is still to update f9 to ghc-6.8.3. > Please do, this way we can start pushing packages through review. Note that current ghc-6.8.3 builds from rawhide work fine under f9 too: so I would suggest using them for now. Jens From bos at serpentine.com Tue Oct 14 03:12:01 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:12:01 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Re: Planning for the Haskell Platform ... and documentation In-Reply-To: <889169770.242731223948894650.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <889169770.242731223948894650.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: Pardon my top-posting, I'm on an iPhone tonight. To update the index, we simply build a big haddock command line, telling it where to find all the existing haddocks. I'll experiment and send out precise details. On Oct 13, 2008, at 18:48, Jens Petersen wrote: >> Right now, there's one standard, frozen set of HTML Haddocks in >> /usr/share/doc/ghc. We have the ability to generate a new index every >> time we install or remove a package, so that the index reflects >> whatever is installed. Thus installing gtk2hs would add a pile of >> entries to the toplevel index. >> >> This seems *really* appealing to me, and we could add it to the %post >> and %preun sections of a package's spec file by editing the top-level >> macros file that Jens recently added. > > What does one have to do to update the index? > >> One necessary change would be to install all haddock docs under >> /usr/share/doc/ghc, so that we could find all '*.haddock' files when >> reindexing, using the find command. > > Sounds good to me. :-) > > -Jens From bos at serpentine.com Tue Oct 14 03:13:37 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:13:37 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 In-Reply-To: <2057280224.246641223951850839.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <2057280224.246641223951850839.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: Ah yes. Let's just backport 6.8.3 then. On Oct 13, 2008, at 19:37, Jens Petersen wrote: >>> I can push an update for the macros instead. > > Ok, I tried to build a ghc-6.8.2 update for f9 in koji: but it fails > with > > checking for gethostent... > yes > configure: creating ./config.status > config.status: creating network.buildinfo > config.status: creating include/HsNetworkConfig.h > Configuring network-2.1.0.0... > rm -f network/GNUmakefile > cp Makefile.local network > if ifBuildable/ifBuildable network; then \ > cd network && setup/Setup makefile -f GNUmakefile; \ > fi > Socket.hsc: In function 'main': > Socket.hsc:1144: error: invalid application of 'sizeof' to > incomplete type 'struct ucred' > Socket.hsc:1144: error: invalid application of 'sizeof' to > incomplete type 'struct ucred' > Socket.hsc:1144: error: invalid application of 'sizeof' to > incomplete type 'struct ucred' > Socket.hsc:1150: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct ucred' > Socket.hsc:1151: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct ucred' > Socket.hsc:1152: error: invalid use of undefined type 'struct ucred' > compiling dist/build/Network/Socket_hsc_make.c failed > command was: gcc -c -D__GLASGOW_HASKELL__=608 -I/builddir/build/ > BUILD/ghc-6.8.2/i > ncludes -I/builddir/build/BUILD/ghc-6.8.2/gmp/gmpbuild - > D__GLASGOW_HASKELL__=608 -DCALLCONV=ccall -Iinclude dist/build/ > Network/Socket_hsc_make.c -o dist/build/Network/Socket_hsc_make.o > Preprocessing library network-2.1.0.0... > make[1]: *** [network/GNUmakefile] Error 1 > make[1]: Leaving directory `/builddir/build/BUILD/ghc-6.8.2/libraries' > make: *** [stage1] Error 2 > error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.17351 (%build) > > See http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=66248 and http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=66247 > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=1853 shows > that ghc-6.8.2 has never built for f9... it starts to come back me > now. ;) > > Any ideas, Bryan? The easiest way forward I can see is still to > update f9 to ghc-6.8.3. > >> Please do, this way we can start pushing packages through review. > > Note that current ghc-6.8.3 builds from rawhide work fine under f9 > too: so I would suggest using them for now. > > Jens From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Tue Oct 14 04:52:07 2008 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 00:52:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Re: Planning for the Haskell Platform ... and documentation In-Reply-To: References: <889169770.242731223948894650.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <7f692fec0810132152j6791cd36tf9d62ca3346bdb16@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan wrote: > Pardon my top-posting, I'm on an iPhone tonight. To update the index, we > simply build a big haddock command line, telling it where to find all the > existing haddocks. I'll experiment and send out precise details. I presume we can just shove this in a macro, add it to the guidelines as a requirement for any package with docs in haddock, and be done with it? -Yaakov From petersen at redhat.com Tue Oct 14 09:29:57 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 05:29:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Tentative plan for GHC 6.10.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1995565324.292331223976597171.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> ----- "Bryan O'Sullivan" wrote: > Ah yes. Let's just backport 6.8.3 then. Ok: I requested pushing haddock09 as an f9 update as a first step since we need that to build ghc-6.8.3. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/haddock09-0.9-3.fc9 Jens From bos at serpentine.com Tue Oct 14 14:45:43 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 07:45:43 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Re: Planning for the Haskell Platform ... and documentation In-Reply-To: <7f692fec0810132152j6791cd36tf9d62ca3346bdb16@mail.gmail.com> References: <889169770.242731223948894650.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <7f692fec0810132152j6791cd36tf9d62ca3346bdb16@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <10050B45-6ED8-48D6-81A5-E7A63D0206DF@serpentine.com> Exactly. On Oct 13, 2008, at 21:52, "Yaakov Nemoy" wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan > wrote: >> Pardon my top-posting, I'm on an iPhone tonight. To update the >> index, we >> simply build a big haddock command line, telling it where to find >> all the >> existing haddocks. I'll experiment and send out precise details. > > I presume we can just shove this in a macro, add it to the guidelines > as a requirement for any package with docs in haddock, and be done > with it? > > -Yaakov From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Oct 14 20:58:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:58:50 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 465126] ghc-doc package has docs in wrong directory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810142058.m9EKwo4K031619@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465126 Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Oct 15 03:43:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:43:20 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810150343.m9F3hKDc016977@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #10 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2008-10-14 23:43:19 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=320383) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=320383) ghc-zlib.spec This is a rework of the spec file to correspond to the current packaging guidelines. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Oct 15 03:53:50 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:53:50 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810150353.m9F3rok0015762@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #11 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2008-10-14 23:53:49 EDT --- BTW, the ghc in F-9 can't build this yet, because it hasn't been brought up to date w.r.t. the current guidelines. We're working to fix 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. From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Wed Oct 15 04:28:05 2008 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:28:05 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Temporarily MIA Message-ID: <7f692fec0810142128x4b5e31f2s8fcefe8deb86dcc9@mail.gmail.com> Hi List, I should probably note that now that while we can build packages in F-9, i'm going to have my butt kicked by a) schoolwork and midterms and b) CPOSC. Expect to hear even less from me for the next couple of weeks. Once this is over, i'll update all my haskell packages in review. -Yaakov From bos at serpentine.com Wed Oct 15 04:29:49 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:29:49 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Temporarily MIA In-Reply-To: <7f692fec0810142128x4b5e31f2s8fcefe8deb86dcc9@mail.gmail.com> References: <7f692fec0810142128x4b5e31f2s8fcefe8deb86dcc9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote: > I should probably note that now that while we can build packages in > F-9, i'm going to have my butt kicked by a) schoolwork and midterms > and b) CPOSC. Good luck :-) From bos at serpentine.com Wed Oct 15 04:42:23 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 21:42:23 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Packaging guidelines and macros update Message-ID: I've got an outline of the new documentation process here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell#Documentation I also did a drive-by update of some other parts of that page, but it's somewhat out of date compared to the hacking that Jens and I have been doing lately. The rawhide and F-10 branches of ghc should have all the right magic for packages to be able to follow the new auto-update Haddock model, and I've attached a shiny new spec file to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 that shows how this works in practice with the ghc-zlib package. For better or worse, all packages will have to be updated to follow this scheme. For ghc's F-9 branch, I've already fixed the macros file, but I'll leave it to Jens to incorporate the other changes that are needed to the ghc spec file. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Oct 16 00:49:31 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:49:31 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810160049.m9G0nV6m026274@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #12 from Jason Tibbitts 2008-10-15 20:49:30 EDT --- How about rawhide's ghc? Did the extra macro bits make it in yet? -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Oct 17 00:36:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:36:03 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810170036.m9H0a3KZ027324@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #13 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2008-10-16 20:36:02 EDT --- Yes, they're in 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Oct 21 04:16:06 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:16:06 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810210416.m9L4G6ip026621@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts 2008-10-21 00:16:05 EDT --- Is there an updated srpm that should be reviewed? I'll be happy to look at this package but I'm not sure if Yaakov is still working 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Oct 21 04:31:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:31:05 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810210431.m9L4V5GK001691@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #15 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2008-10-21 00:31:04 EDT --- Thanks, Jason. Yaakov is busy with other stuff at the moment and likely to remain so for a while, so here are the latest spec and SRPM files: http://bos.fedorapeople.org/ghc-zlib-0.4.0.4-1.fc10.src.rpm http://bos.fedorapeople.org/ghc-zlib.spec Remember that these need a fresh rawhide ghc (I have ghc-6.10.0.20081007-6.fc11.x86_64) to work. The rpmlint warnings for the binary RPMs are expected and normal. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Oct 22 05:23:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 01:23:20 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810220523.m9M5NKhU005408@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #16 from Yaakov Nemoy 2008-10-22 01:23:19 EDT --- Sorry, school's kicking my butt again. :/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From petersen at redhat.com Wed Oct 22 06:38:25 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 02:38:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Re: Planning for the Haskell Platform ... and documentation In-Reply-To: <1766027290.2555681224656967252.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1027596711.2556091224657505293.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> > > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan > > wrote: > >> To update the > >> index, we simply build a big haddock command line, telling it where to find > >> all the existing haddocks. I'll experiment and send out precise details. > > > > I presume we can just shove this in a macro, add it to the guidelines > > as a requirement for any package with docs in haddock, and be done > > with it? Can we use haddock-2.0 for this with ghc-6.8.3 or should it be haddock-0.9 in that case? Jens From bos at serpentine.com Wed Oct 22 15:09:34 2008 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:09:34 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Re: Planning for the Haskell Platform ... and documentation In-Reply-To: <1027596711.2556091224657505293.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <1766027290.2555681224656967252.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <1027596711.2556091224657505293.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:38 PM, Jens Petersen wrote: > Can we use haddock-2.0 for this with ghc-6.8.3 or should it be haddock-0.9 in that case? It will need to be haddock09 there. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Oct 22 15:24:45 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:24:45 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810221524.m9MFOjxh021256@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #17 from Jason Tibbitts 2008-10-22 11:24:44 EDT --- Unfortunately I think that instead of "rawhide" you really mean "from the F-11 branch" because the latest package tagged into rawhide is ghc-6.8.3-8.fc10. I'll have to cook up a mock config to suck in dist-f11. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Oct 22 15:36:56 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:36:56 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810221536.m9MFauvU023440@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #18 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2008-10-22 11:36:55 EDT --- Jason, you are of course right. Sorry for my oversight. I hope it didn't waste too much of your 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Oct 22 16:49:41 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:49:41 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810221649.m9MGnfe4029374@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #19 from Jason Tibbitts 2008-10-22 12:49:41 EDT --- Well, actually I'm about 1.5 hours into downloading the ghc packages from static-repos. Only about 30MB (out of 77MB) to go! Caching should of course make this reasonable in the future, but it still takes 20 minutes just to pull fresh repodata. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Oct 22 17:34:07 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 13:34:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426750] Review Request: ghc-utf8-string - Support reading and writing UTF8 Strings In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810221734.m9MHY7uK005731@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426750 David Woodhouse changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dwmw2 at infradead.org Flag| |needinfo+ -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Oct 22 19:37:14 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 15:37:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810221937.m9MJbEZX028878@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 Jason Tibbitts changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts 2008-10-22 15:37:12 EDT --- Finally. This is the first one of these I've seen being done, so I'll have a few probably obvious questions. First off, why the hsc_name macro? Or rather, why go to the trouble of defining it to "ghc" only to use "ghc" explicitly later? Wouldn't it be simpler just to not use the macro at all? If you build a package against ghc-zlib, will it be required at runtime? I guess what's confusing me is all the talk of static linking, and yet the .a file is packaged, which implies that this is really some sort of -devel package needed at compile time. Is there no kind of runtime/-devel split of these packages? There's no reason to include the LICENSE file twice, is there? Otherwise the %ghc_* macros hide all of the complexity nicely. I'm not sure I'd know how to find a test suite if one were included, so I can't really check that. With some good answers to the above questions I don't see any reason this wouldn't pass review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Oct 23 03:07:01 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:07:01 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810230307.m9N371ka006062@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW AssignedTo|tibbs at math.uh.edu |nobody at fedoraproject.org --- Comment #21 from Jens Petersen 2008-10-22 23:07:00 EDT --- I just pushed ghc-6.8.3-9.fc10 to koji so this package review should be able to proceed from rawhide soon. Note that I added a new macro pkg_docdir so that should take care of tibbs' comment on hsc_name (I have been working to get rid of the latter macro). -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Oct 23 03:21:30 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:21:30 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810230321.m9N3LUmj013200@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #22 from Jason Tibbitts 2008-10-22 23:21:29 EDT --- Erm, did you mean to to set this back to NEW and assign it back to nobody? Actually, I didn't even think you could set a ticket back to NEW after its been assigned; at least, the web interface won't let you. I wonder how that happened. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Oct 23 07:51:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:51:03 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810230751.m9N7p3MV021054@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #23 from Jens Petersen 2008-10-23 03:51:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #21) > I just pushed ghc-6.8.3-9.fc10 to koji Please ghc-6.8.3-10.fc10 with a fixed %cabal_configure for ghc-6.8.3. (In reply to comment #22) > Erm, did you mean to to set this back to NEW and assign it back to nobody? Oops, sorry - no I didn't - I guess I already had the bug open in my browser. Jason, I didn't mean to steal the review from you, but I was planning on taking it since I am familiar with Haskell packaging and since no package review has yet been through the new haskell guidelines I might be better placed to do this one? But if you want to take it I won't stand in your way. :) -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Oct 23 07:54:44 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:54:44 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810230754.m9N7si6q021569@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #24 from Jens Petersen 2008-10-23 03:54:43 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=321249) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=321249) ghc-zlib.spec-1.patch A bit of cleanup/simplification and make it build with ghc-6.8.3 in current 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Oct 23 07:52:36 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 03:52:36 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810230752.m9N7qa8U021338@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs at math.uh.edu AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |tibbs at math.uh.edu -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Oct 24 02:02:54 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 22:02:54 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 468314] New: gtk2hs should be renamed ghc-gtk2hs Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: gtk2hs should be renamed ghc-gtk2hs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=468314 Summary: gtk2hs should be renamed ghc-gtk2hs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: gtk2hs AssignedTo: petersen at redhat.com ReportedBy: petersen at redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: petersen at redhat.com, bos at serpentine.com, fedora-haskell-list at redhat.com Blocks: 446451 Classification: Fedora Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info: -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Oct 24 20:08:24 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 16:08:24 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451877] unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810242008.m9OK8OBa006730@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451877 Bill Nottingham changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |notting at redhat.com --- Comment #6 from Bill Nottingham 2008-10-24 16:08:23 EDT --- Can Haskell users verify this and close the bug if it's fixed? -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Oct 27 15:07:48 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 11:07:48 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810271507.m9RF7mDv001934@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #25 from Jason Tibbitts 2008-10-27 11:07:45 EDT --- Honestly as an FPC member I'm quite interested in actually seeing how the guidelines work for someone who is not familiar with Haskell. Besides, at this point it seems as if you are submitting the package, which would mean that it is quite inappropriate for you to be reviewing it as well. Before progressing, though, the remaining questions in comment #20 need answers. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Oct 27 22:27:02 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 18:27:02 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810272227.m9RMR2U0030985@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 --- Comment #26 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2008-10-27 18:27:01 EDT --- Re comment #20: > If you build a package against ghc-zlib, will it be required at runtime? No. These Haskell packages are essentially devel packages. > There's no reason to include the LICENSE file twice, is there? No. If that's happening, it's a mistake. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Oct 28 00:46:40 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 20:46:40 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810280046.m9S0kein013756@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #27 from Jens Petersen 2008-10-27 20:46:39 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) > Is there no kind of runtime/-devel split of these packages? Current releases of ghc do not support shared libraries on Linux (though this may change in come releases). > I'm not sure I'd know how to find a test suite if one were included, so I can't really check that. I don't think there is one included in the package. -- 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Oct 28 05:00:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 01:00:26 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 250767] ghc-gtk2hs won't install with only 256MB RAM In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200810280500.m9S50QbP021820@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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250767 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|high |medium -- 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.