From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Aug 1 19:19:16 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 15:19:16 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 503250] Review Request: ghc-hinotify - Haskell binding to INotify In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908011919.n71JJGUp008346@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=503250 Jason Tibbitts changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(oglesbyzm at gmail.c | |om) --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-01 15:19:16 EDT --- Anything happening here? It's been a month since the last comment. -- 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 Mon Aug 3 09:03:05 2009 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 11:03:05 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Haskell Platform Message-ID: <7f692fec0908030203na4fd07cq92ada459a02349f6@mail.gmail.com> Hey List, I saw this morning that there has been another release of the Haskell platform, and it's a shame that we can't provide it yet on Fedora. I remember there being some discussion about the best way to do it on Fedora, but i can't remember the details offhand. I think the best thing to do though would be to package each component as a separate package, ie, one tarball per source rpm, and then include either an empty package that depends on it, or messing around with comps. However we end up doing it though, i do have some good news. Because of the amount of free time that i have with my new job, i've been able to spend more than a few hours a week devoted to packaging during the work week. The only catch is that in order to get new packages in Fedora, we need at least two people who are willing to do the same. I don't mind doing packaging or reviewing, but someone or several someones need to step up and volunteer to do the other half. Either i'll mass submit a bunch of libraries, and someone can methodically go through them and review them, or someone else can put up the packages, and i'll take the time to do the reviews. Anyone willing? -Yaakov From miles at milessabin.com Mon Aug 3 14:43:08 2009 From: miles at milessabin.com (Miles Sabin) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 15:43:08 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Haskell Platform In-Reply-To: <7f692fec0908030203na4fd07cq92ada459a02349f6@mail.gmail.com> References: <7f692fec0908030203na4fd07cq92ada459a02349f6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30961e500908030743s60b5205bsae2775ec52d2bab5@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote: > Anyone willing? Yes, me, I've been wanting to contribute here for ages, but have been waiting for the dust to settle on the packaging guidelines etc. ... Cheers, Miles -- Miles Sabin tel: +44 (0)7813 944 528 skype: milessabin http://www.chuusai.com/ http://twitter.com/milessabin From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Mon Aug 3 14:44:26 2009 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:44:26 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Haskell Platform In-Reply-To: <30961e500908030743s60b5205bsae2775ec52d2bab5@mail.gmail.com> References: <7f692fec0908030203na4fd07cq92ada459a02349f6@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500908030743s60b5205bsae2775ec52d2bab5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7f692fec0908030744we73764ds2f14bf04639c2fb3@mail.gmail.com> 2009/8/3 Miles Sabin : > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote: >> Anyone willing? > > Yes, me, I've been wanting to contribute here for ages, but have been > waiting for the dust to settle on the packaging guidelines etc. ... Ok, do you want to find a couple of the packages that are in the platform but not yet on Fedora and take a stab at packaging them? Then you can email me BZ links, and i'll do some reviews so you can get a feel for it. -Yaakov From miles at milessabin.com Mon Aug 3 15:10:18 2009 From: miles at milessabin.com (Miles Sabin) Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2009 16:10:18 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Haskell Platform In-Reply-To: <7f692fec0908030744we73764ds2f14bf04639c2fb3@mail.gmail.com> References: <7f692fec0908030203na4fd07cq92ada459a02349f6@mail.gmail.com> <30961e500908030743s60b5205bsae2775ec52d2bab5@mail.gmail.com> <7f692fec0908030744we73764ds2f14bf04639c2fb3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <30961e500908030810q41dfa3d9pe44c349cc39653d2@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote: > Ok, do you want to find a couple of the packages that are in the > platform but not yet on Fedora and take a stab at packaging them? Then > you can email me BZ links, and i'll do some reviews so you can get a > feel for it. Sounds good. Any particular preferences? BTW, I should probably mention that I'll need sponsoring. Cheers, Miles -- Miles Sabin tel: +44 (0)7813 944 528 skype: milessabin http://www.chuusai.com/ http://twitter.com/milessabin From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Aug 12 17:56:27 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:56:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517141] Review Request: ghc-fgl - functional graph library for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908121756.n7CHuRN2024539@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=517141 Bryan O'Sullivan 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 Aug 12 17:07:48 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 13:07:48 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 488397] Review Request: ghc-tar - Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908121707.n7CH7mZJ005168@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=488397 Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |bos at serpentine.com AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |bos at serpentine.com Flag|needinfo?(petersen at redhat.c |fedora-review+ |om) | --- Comment #7 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-08-12 13:07:47 EDT --- # MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. All pass cleanly, with a few warnings that are expected given Haskell packaging issues. # MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . Yes. # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . Yes. # MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . Yes. # MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . BSD. # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] Yes. # MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4] Yes. # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] Yes. # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] Yes. # MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. Yes. # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] Yes. # MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] Yes. # MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. Yes. # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] N/A. # MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] N/A. # MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [11] N/A. # MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [12] Yes. # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [13] Yes. # MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [14] Yes. # MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15] Yes. # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] Yes. # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] Yes. # MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] Yes. # MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] Yes. # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] Yes. # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] N/A. # MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [21] N/A. # MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [19] N/A. # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [22] N/A. # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[20] N/A. # MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [23] N/A. # MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24] Yes. # MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25] Yes. # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26] Yes. This package is 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Aug 12 22:03:12 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908122203.n7CM3C5T016985@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=517144 Bryan O'Sullivan 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 Aug 12 22:01:22 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:01:22 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908122201.n7CM1M3O016805@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=517155 Bryan O'Sullivan 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 Aug 12 22:00:45 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:00:45 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517197] New: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517197 Summary: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody at fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bos at serpentine.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: notting at redhat.com, fedora-package-review at redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list at redhat.com Depends on: 517155 Classification: Fedora Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? Spec: http://www.serpentine.com/bos/files/ghc-GLUT.spec SRPM: http://www.serpentine.com/bos/files/ghc-GLUT-2.1.1.2-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: This package provides the Haskell GLUT library for ghc. This is a set of bindings to the C freeglut library. -- 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 Wed Aug 12 22:06:19 2009 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:06:19 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Platform support update: a little review help needed Message-ID: Hi, folks - I've written a section for the wiki page describing our support for the Haskell Platform: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Haskell_SIG#Haskell_Platform_support I just filed 4 review requests for the last 4 unpackaged libraries that we need to have in order to support the HP. They should all be by-the-numbers affairs: if any of you has cycles to review them, I'd really really appreciate it. It would be great to announce that Fedora has complete HP support in time for ICFP at the end of this month. I'm also thinking of writing an umbrella package so that you can just run "yum -y install ghc-platform" and get everything you need in one shot. What would people think of that? Cheers, Bryan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bos at serpentine.com Thu Aug 13 19:53:59 2009 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:53:59 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Package groups vs "metapackages" Message-ID: I've been working recently on bringing Fedora up to snuff as a platform to build Haskell software on: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Haskell#Haskell_Platform_support In my ideal world, it would be possible to install all of the necessities for decent Haskell development via a single short command line. I can see two ways to do this: - Create a "haskell-devel" (or something) package that simply depends on all of the Haskell Platform's component packages. This would have the nice property of being versioned, just as the Haskell Platform itself is. - Create a "Haskell Development" group in comps. This is unknown territory to me: I don't know if it's a good idea, how it would work, how I'd edit it to add new dependencies when the Haskell Platform gets updates, or ... well, anything. What's the collective wisdom about the best approach for doing this? Thanks, Bryan. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Sun Aug 16 08:37:14 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 04:37:14 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517701] New: Please rebuild it with openal-soft Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: Please rebuild it with openal-soft https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517701 Summary: Please rebuild it with openal-soft Product: Fedora Version: 11 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: high Component: hugs98 AssignedTo: gemi at bluewin.ch ReportedBy: linuxdonald at linuxdonald.de QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: gemi at bluewin.ch, fedora-haskell-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Hello please rebuild your package with openal-soft you can find it in testing repo for f10/f11/f12 hugs98-openal need rebuild -- 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 Sun Aug 16 09:49:44 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 05:49:44 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517701] Please rebuild it with openal-soft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908160949.n7G9niTq002103@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=517701 Hans de Goede changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |hdegoede at redhat.com Version|11 |rawhide --- Comment #1 from Hans de Goede 2009-08-16 05:49:44 EDT --- As discussed in bug 515109, openal using packages should only be rebuild using openal-soft-devel instead of openal-devel for F-12. Thomas, I know your English isn't the best, but please try to understand, were not going to blindly rebuild all openal using packages for F-11 and F-10. Instead the F-10 and F-11 openal-soft should NOT have the Obsoletes for regular openal (and a conflicts for openal-devel), like the initial versions for F-12 used to have. So please remove (unpush) the current openal-soft from F-10 / F-11 updates testing and do a new version without the Obosoletes / Provides for regular openal (and with a conflicts for openal-devel instead). Thank You! Regards, Hans p.s. As a demonstration of why it is a bad idea to switch to openal-soft for F-11 and F-10 see bug 517721 -- 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 Sun Aug 16 11:41:30 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:41:30 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517701] Please rebuild it with openal-soft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908161141.n7GBfU91027294@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=517701 G?rard Milmeister changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #2 from G?rard Milmeister 2009-08-16 07:41:30 EDT --- I rebuilt hugs for rawhide. Rebuilding for F-10 and F-11 fails anyways, since the packages in testing are not in the koji buildroot. -- 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 Sun Aug 16 11:47:26 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 07:47:26 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517701] Please rebuild it with openal-soft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908161147.n7GBlQdM022513@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=517701 Thomas Kowaliczek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED CC| |linuxdonald at linuxdonald.de Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #3 from Thomas Kowaliczek 2009-08-16 07:47:25 EDT --- It?s okay rebuild it only for 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 Aug 20 10:38:03 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:38:03 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517197] Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908201038.n7KAc3A9014285@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=517197 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |loupgaroublond at gmail.com Flag| |needinfo?(bos at serpentine.co | |m) --- Comment #1 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-20 06:38:02 EDT --- Oddly enough, i can't get the md5sums to match. The file sizes of what is shipped in the RPM is different than what i get from Hackage. -- 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 Aug 20 10:43:22 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:43:22 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908201043.n7KAhMjL015316@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=517155 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |loupgaroublond at gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-20 06:43:21 EDT --- I'm getting the same checksum errors here. This is a bit odd. -- 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 Thu Aug 20 10:52:20 2009 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 12:52:20 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Checksums while doing the Platform reviews Message-ID: <7f692fec0908200352w6b8e3fd6pc36fff6859460de9@mail.gmail.com> Hey All, I tried to do the reviews for the Haskell Platform, and i came across a simple problem. The file sizes don't match, and nor do the checksums. Any clues, comments or whatever? I also have a few other questions about being able to install later versions of the same libraries, but we can deal with that later. -Yaakov From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Aug 20 10:50:19 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:50:19 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 488397] Review Request: ghc-tar - Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908201050.n7KAoJY7031906@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=488397 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-20 06:50:17 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-tar Short Description: Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell Owners: Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: fedora-haskell-list -- 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 Thu Aug 20 16:55:05 2009 From: bos at serpentine.com (Bryan O'Sullivan) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:55:05 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Checksums while doing the Platform reviews In-Reply-To: <7f692fec0908200352w6b8e3fd6pc36fff6859460de9@mail.gmail.com> References: <7f692fec0908200352w6b8e3fd6pc36fff6859460de9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:52 AM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote: > > I tried to do the reviews for the Haskell Platform, and i came across > a simple problem. The file sizes don't match, and nor do the > checksums. Any clues, comments or whatever? > Yeah, I created the SRPMs from the giant Platform tarball, rather than from the files downloaded from Hackage. I bet that's what caused the problem. So you can ignore that - the thing to focus on is the spec files. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Aug 20 17:36:07 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:36:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 488397] Review Request: ghc-tar - Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908201736.n7KHa7Zh023509@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=488397 Jason Tibbitts changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs- --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-20 13:36:06 EDT --- Owners: is blank in the above CVS request, we cannot create F-12 branches yes, and there seems to be no FAS ID "fedora-haskell-list". Please resubmit a corrected CVS request. -- 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 Aug 20 18:08:24 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:08:24 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908201808.n7KI8ONM019785@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=517155 --- Comment #2 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-08-20 14:08:23 EDT --- Updated SRPM now uploaded. Sorry for the inconvenience! -- 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 Aug 20 18:06:29 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:06:29 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517197] Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908201806.n7KI6TrF019610@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=517197 Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(bos at serpentine.co | |m) | --- Comment #2 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-08-20 14:06:28 EDT --- Updated SRPM now at the above URL. -- 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 Aug 21 01:33:52 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:33:52 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 488397] Review Request: ghc-tar - Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908210133.n7L1XqA2019925@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=488397 --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-20 21:33:52 EDT --- Yaakov, it's "haskell-sig". -- 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 Aug 21 01:40:39 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 21:40:39 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908210140.n7L1edCw010231@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=426752 --- Comment #25 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-20 21:40:37 EDT --- Zach, are you going to update 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 Fri Aug 21 09:39:02 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:39:02 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 488397] Review Request: ghc-tar - Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908210939.n7L9d2QC016568@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=488397 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #11 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-21 05:39:00 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-tar Short Description: Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell Owners: ynemoy, petersen, bos Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- 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 Aug 21 18:21:52 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 14:21:52 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 488397] Review Request: ghc-tar - Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908211821.n7LILqZL025435@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=488397 Dennis Gilmore changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #12 from Dennis Gilmore 2009-08-21 14:21:51 EDT --- CVS Done you cant request F-12 branches yet for future reference please dont put commas between usernames -- 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 Sun Aug 23 15:51:44 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:51:44 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908231551.n7NFpixv032477@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=517155 --- Comment #4 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-23 11:51:44 EDT --- Btw, please do this one soon, so we can get to the packages that depend on this, like GLUT. -- 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 Sun Aug 23 15:51:17 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 11:51:17 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908231551.n7NFpHrT032418@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=517155 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, | |needinfo?(bos at serpentine.co | |m) --- Comment #3 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-23 11:51:16 EDT --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] [yankee at koan ghc-OpenGL]$ rpmlint -iv *rpm *spec ghc-OpenGL.src: I: checking ghc-OpenGL-devel.i586: I: checking ghc-OpenGL-devel.ppc: I: checking ghc-OpenGL-devel.x86_64: I: checking ghc-OpenGL-doc.i586: I: checking ghc-OpenGL-doc.i586: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-OpenGL library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-OpenGL-doc.ppc: I: checking ghc-OpenGL-doc.ppc: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-OpenGL library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-OpenGL-doc.x86_64: I: checking ghc-OpenGL-doc.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-OpenGL library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-OpenGL-prof.i586: I: checking ghc-OpenGL-prof.i586: E: devel-dependency ghc-OpenGL-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-OpenGL-prof.i586: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-OpenGL-prof.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/OpenGL-2.2.1.1/libHSOpenGL-2.2.1.1_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. ghc-OpenGL-prof.ppc: I: checking ghc-OpenGL-prof.ppc: E: devel-dependency ghc-OpenGL-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-OpenGL-prof.ppc: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-OpenGL-prof.ppc: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/OpenGL-2.2.1.1/libHSOpenGL-2.2.1.1_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. ghc-OpenGL-prof.x86_64: I: checking ghc-OpenGL-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-OpenGL-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-OpenGL-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-OpenGL-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.3/OpenGL-2.2.1.1/libHSOpenGL-2.2.1.1_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. 10 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings. CHEKC -- All acceptable within the realm of haskell packages MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . >>CHECK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . >>CHECK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . >>CHECK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . >>CHECK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] >>CHECK MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4] >>CHECK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] >>CHECK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] >>CHECK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. >>CHECK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] >>CHECK MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] >>CHECK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. >>CHECK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [12] >>CHECK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [13] >>CHECK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [14] >>CHECK MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15] >>CHECK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] >>CHECK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] >>CHECK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] >>CHECK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] >>CHECK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] >>CHECK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24] >>CHECK MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25] >>CHECK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26] >>CHECK SHOULD Items: Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do. SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [29] >>CHECK SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [30] >>CHECK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. >>CHECK SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [22] >>CHECK Resolution: PASS -- 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 Sun Aug 23 16:26:02 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 12:26:02 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 488397] Review Request: ghc-tar - Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908231626.n7NGQ2Sg006151@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=488397 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-23 12:26:01 EDT --- ghc-tar-0.3.0.0-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-tar-0.3.0.0-2.fc11 -- 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 Aug 24 03:38:24 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2009 23:38:24 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908240338.n7O3cOFR022661@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=426752 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(loupgaroublond at gm | |ail.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 Mon Aug 24 13:57:27 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 09:57:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908241357.n7ODvR9J013602@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=426752 Zach Oglesby changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(zoglesby at zach.tk) | --- Comment #26 from Zach Oglesby 2009-08-24 09:57:24 EDT --- Indeed, sorry we just had a baby and I see to not have enough time in the day, I will try and get it updated today or tomorrow. -- 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 Aug 25 04:26:11 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:26:11 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 488397] Review Request: ghc-tar - Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908250426.n7P4QBKv002486@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=488397 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |0.3.0.0-2.fc11 Resolution| |ERRATA -- 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 Aug 25 04:26:06 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 00:26:06 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 488397] Review Request: ghc-tar - Reading, writing and manipulating ".tar" archive files in Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908250426.n7P4Q6Y8027756@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=488397 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-25 00:26:05 EDT --- ghc-tar-0.3.0.0-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 Aug 25 10:22:47 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 06:22:47 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908251022.n7PAMlZx011268@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=426752 --- Comment #27 from Zach Oglesby 2009-08-25 06:22:45 EDT --- Updated http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-X11-xft.spec http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-X11-xft-0.3-1.fc12.src.rpm -- 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 Aug 25 14:43:41 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 10:43:41 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908251443.n7PEhfF2000996@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=426752 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(loupgaroublond at gm |needinfo? |ail.com) | --- Comment #28 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-25 10:43:37 EDT --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] [yankee at koan ghc-X11-xft]$ rpmlint -iv *{spec,rpm} ghc-X11-xft.src: I: checking ghc-X11-xft.src: I: checking ghc-X11-xft-devel.i586: I: checking ghc-X11-xft-devel.ppc: I: checking ghc-X11-xft-devel.x86_64: I: checking ghc-X11-xft-doc.i586: I: checking ghc-X11-xft-doc.i586: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-X11-xft library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-X11-xft-doc.ppc: I: checking ghc-X11-xft-doc.ppc: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-X11-xft library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-X11-xft-doc.x86_64: I: checking ghc-X11-xft-doc.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-X11-xft library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-X11-xft-prof.i586: I: checking ghc-X11-xft-prof.i586: E: devel-dependency ghc-X11-xft-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-X11-xft-prof.i586: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-X11-xft-prof.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/X11-xft-0.3/libHSX11-xft-0.3_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. ghc-X11-xft-prof.ppc: I: checking ghc-X11-xft-prof.ppc: E: devel-dependency ghc-X11-xft-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-X11-xft-prof.ppc: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-X11-xft-prof.ppc: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/X11-xft-0.3/libHSX11-xft-0.3_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. ghc-X11-xft-prof.x86_64: I: checking ghc-X11-xft-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-X11-xft-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-X11-xft-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-X11-xft-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.3/X11-xft-0.3/libHSX11-xft-0.3_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. 11 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings. >>> CHECK --> All normal for GHC packages with one exception. I think cabal2spec is generating the description errors because i had the same problem on another review. n MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . >>> CHECK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] >>> CHECK MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4] >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] >>> CHECK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. >>> CHECK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] >>> CHECK MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] >>> CHECK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. >>> CHECK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [12] >>> CHECK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [13] >>> CHECK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [14] >>> CHECK MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15] >>> CHECK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] >>> CHECK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] >>> CHECK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] >>> CHECK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] >>> CHECK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [22] >>> MISSING MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24] >>> CHECK MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25] >>> CHECK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26] >>> CHECK SHOULD Items: Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do. SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [27] >>> CHECK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [29] >>> CHECK SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [30] >>> CHECK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. >>> CHECK SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [22] >>> MISSING Resolution: Not yet passed. Please add in the last depedencies and fix the description. Congrats on the baby :) -- 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 Aug 25 15:22:44 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:22:44 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908251522.n7PFMiVa017816@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=426752 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review?, needinfo? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #29 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-25 11:22:41 EDT --- Actually, i take that back. Just fix the description. I was looking over the template again, and i forgot that we put everything in a -devel package. Just fix the description and it's a pass. I was looking at it funny. -- 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 Aug 25 15:25:11 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:25:11 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908251525.n7PFPBgb013256@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=517144 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loupgaroublond at gmail.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, | |needinfo?(bos at serpentine.co | |m) --- Comment #1 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-25 11:25:09 EDT --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] [yankee at koan ghc-HUnit]$ rpmlint -iv *{spec,rpm} ghc-HUnit.src: I: checking ghc-HUnit-devel.i586: I: checking ghc-HUnit-devel.ppc: I: checking ghc-HUnit-devel.x86_64: I: checking ghc-HUnit-doc.i586: I: checking ghc-HUnit-doc.i586: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-HUnit library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-HUnit-doc.ppc: I: checking ghc-HUnit-doc.ppc: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-HUnit library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-HUnit-doc.x86_64: I: checking ghc-HUnit-doc.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package contains development documentation files for the ghc-HUnit library. Your description lines must not exceed 79 characters. If a line is exceeding this number, cut it to fit in two lines. ghc-HUnit-prof.i586: I: checking ghc-HUnit-prof.i586: E: devel-dependency ghc-HUnit-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-HUnit-prof.i586: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-HUnit-prof.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/HUnit-1.2.0.3/libHSHUnit-1.2.0.3_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. ghc-HUnit-prof.ppc: I: checking ghc-HUnit-prof.ppc: E: devel-dependency ghc-HUnit-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-HUnit-prof.ppc: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-HUnit-prof.ppc: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/HUnit-1.2.0.3/libHSHUnit-1.2.0.3_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. ghc-HUnit-prof.x86_64: I: checking ghc-HUnit-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-HUnit-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-HUnit-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-HUnit-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.3/HUnit-1.2.0.3/libHSHUnit-1.2.0.3_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. 10 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 6 warnings. >>> CHECK -> normal for haskell packages, with the exception of the description warning. Please fix it. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . >>> CHECK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] >>> CHECK MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4] >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] >>> CHECK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. >>> CHECK -> Presuming innocence here re: using the official tarballfor the Platform project. MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] >>> CHECK MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] >>> CHECK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. >>> CHECK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [12] >>> CHECK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [13] >>> CHECK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [14] >>> CHECK MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15] >>> CHECK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] >>> CHECK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] >>> CHECK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] >>> CHECK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] >>> CHECK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [22] >>> CHECK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24] >>> CHECK MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25] >>> CHECK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26] >>> CHECK SHOULD Items: Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do. SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [27] >>> CHECK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [29] >>> CHECK SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [30] >>> CHECK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. >>> CHECK SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [22] >>> CHECK SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [32] >>> CHECK Resolution: PASS, please fix the description -- 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 Aug 25 16:29:11 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 12:29:11 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908251629.n7PGTBGA001822@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=426752 --- Comment #30 from Zach Oglesby 2009-08-25 12:29:10 EDT --- Fixed, http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-X11-xft.spec http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-X11-xft-0.3-2.fc12.src.rpm -- 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 Aug 26 00:16:31 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 20:16:31 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908260016.n7Q0GVrb028369@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=426754 --- Comment #16 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-25 20:16:30 EDT --- It is much easier for reviewers if you clearly post the updated spec and srpm urls with each update: the spec file still seems to be from March... -- 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 Aug 26 03:59:05 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 23:59:05 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908260359.n7Q3x5b1008088@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=426752 --- Comment #31 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-25 23:59:04 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=358664) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=358664) deps clean up Please apply these dependency fixes. I know it is a bit tedious doing all this stuff by hand, but let's try to keep our sig packages clean until cabal2spec is smart enough. :) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1634073 -- 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 Aug 26 04:22:23 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:22:23 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908260422.n7Q4MNqA007604@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=517155 Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(bos at serpentine.co | |m) | --- Comment #5 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-08-26 00:22:22 EDT --- Will do. -- 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 Aug 26 04:28:31 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:28:31 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908260428.n7Q4SVgG008540@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=517144 Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(bos at serpentine.co | |m) | --- Comment #2 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-08-26 00:28:30 EDT --- Will do, 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. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Aug 26 04:27:36 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:27:36 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908260427.n7Q4RaCi008418@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=517155 Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-08-26 00:27:35 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-OpenGL Short Description: bindings to the C OpenGL library Owners: bos petersen ynemoy Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- 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 Aug 26 04:32:30 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:32:30 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908260432.n7Q4WUja013596@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=426754 --- Comment #17 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-26 00:32:29 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=358666) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=358666) ghc-xmonad-contrib.spec-1.patch clean and fix requires and BRs http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1634104 Since ghc-X11-xft is ready maybe we can drop the xft bcond though -- 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 Aug 26 04:29:21 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:29:21 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908260429.n7Q4TLxe012898@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=517144 Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-08-26 00:29:20 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-HUnit Short Description: unit testing support for Haskell Owners: bos ynemoy petersen Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- 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 Aug 26 04:33:28 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:33:28 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908260433.n7Q4XSrv009415@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=426754 --- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-26 00:33:28 EDT --- If you update the urls I will try to pick with the review and hope we have this timely. :) -- 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 Aug 26 04:34:36 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 00:34:36 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908260434.n7Q4YaxS009544@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=426754 --- Comment #19 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-26 00:34:36 EDT --- ugh, take 2: If you update the urls I will try to pick up the review and hope we can finish this timely. :) -- 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 Aug 26 09:05:31 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 05:05:31 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908260905.n7Q95Vto004298@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=426752 Zach Oglesby changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? -- 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 Aug 26 19:29:51 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:29:51 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517141] Review Request: ghc-fgl - functional graph library for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908261929.n7QJTpZK016141@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=517141 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loupgaroublond at gmail.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, | |needinfo?(bos at serpentine.co | |m) --- Comment #1 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-26 15:29:50 EDT --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] [yankee at koan ghc-fgl]$ rpmlint -iv *{spec,rpm} ghc-fgl.src: I: checking ghc-fgl-devel.i586: I: checking ghc-fgl-devel.ppc: I: checking ghc-fgl-devel.x86_64: I: checking ghc-fgl-doc.i586: I: checking ghc-fgl-doc.ppc: I: checking ghc-fgl-doc.x86_64: I: checking ghc-fgl-prof.i586: I: checking ghc-fgl-prof.i586: E: devel-dependency ghc-fgl-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-fgl-prof.i586: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-fgl-prof.i586: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/fgl-5.4.2.2/libHSfgl-5.4.2.2_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. ghc-fgl-prof.ppc: I: checking ghc-fgl-prof.ppc: E: devel-dependency ghc-fgl-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-fgl-prof.ppc: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-fgl-prof.ppc: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.3/fgl-5.4.2.2/libHSfgl-5.4.2.2_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. ghc-fgl-prof.x86_64: I: checking ghc-fgl-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-fgl-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-fgl-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-fgl-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.3/fgl-5.4.2.2/libHSfgl-5.4.2.2_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. 10 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings. >>> CHECK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . >>> CHECK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] >>> CHECK MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4] >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] >>> CHECK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. >>> CHECK --> presuming innoncence here MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] >>> CHECK MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] >>> CHECK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. >>> CHECK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [12] >>> CHECK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [13] >>> CHECK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [14] >>> CHECK MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15] >>> CHECK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] >>> CHECK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] >>> CHECK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] >>> CHECK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] >>> CHECK MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] >>> CHECK MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [21] >>> CHECK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24] >>> CHECK MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25] >>> CHECK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26] >>> CHECK SHOULD Items: Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do. SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [29] >>> CHECK SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [30] >>> CHECK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. >>> CHECK SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [22] >>> CHECK SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [32] >>> CHECK Resolution: PASS -- 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 Aug 26 22:19:32 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:19:32 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908262219.n7QMJWff016285@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=517144 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |loupgaroublond at gmail.com Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #4 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-26 18:19:31 EDT --- we are not doing F-12 branches yet. Otherwise cvs done. -- 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 Aug 26 22:20:49 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:20:49 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908262220.n7QMKnd8020601@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=517155 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |loupgaroublond at gmail.com Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #7 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-26 18:20:48 EDT --- cvs done (except we aren't doing F-12 branches 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 Wed Aug 26 22:32:31 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 18:32:31 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908262232.n7QMWV69022475@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=426752 --- Comment #32 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-08-26 18:32:30 EDT --- Please add a cvs template here so we know what you want. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure -- 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 Aug 27 03:58:59 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 23:58:59 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908270358.n7R3wxKb020318@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=426752 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? | -- 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 Aug 27 08:36:41 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 04:36:41 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908270836.n7R8afWe007444@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=426752 Zach Oglesby changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #33 from Zach Oglesby 2009-08-27 04:35:58 EDT --- Sorry about that! New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-X11-xft Short Description: Haskell binding to Xft Owners: zoglesby Branches: F10 F11 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- 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 Aug 27 15:32:37 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:32:37 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908271532.n7RFWbju001945@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=426754 --- Comment #20 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-27 11:32:35 EDT --- SPEC: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-xmonad-contrib.spec SRPM: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-xmonad-contrib-0.8.1-7.fc10.src.rpm -- 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 popavdan at yahoo.com Thu Aug 27 16:05:18 2009 From: popavdan at yahoo.com (Dan Popa) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 09:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Bug in the Gnome's Power Management Module or Applet ? 25-27 aug 2009 Message-ID: <390422.67262.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Description: : Strange info offered by the Power Management applet from the Gnome Taskbar. See picture. Motiv: Last upgrade from 25-26 of august. Hardware: Dell Inspiron 1525 ??????????????? Also problem on an Acer 3100 RPMS installed: see attached list... sorry for being so long :) P.S. Don't blame me and, please, send this bug where it have to go. Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Capture-1.png Type: image/png Size: 684410 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: rpms.txt URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Aug 27 16:23:25 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:23:25 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908271623.n7RGNPY6008914@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=426754 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |petersen at redhat.com Flag| |fedora-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 Aug 27 16:26:52 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:26:52 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908271626.n7RGQqRn014657@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=426754 --- Comment #21 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-27 12:26:51 EDT --- Presumably: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-xmonad-contrib-0.8.1-7.fc11.src.rpm -- 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 Aug 27 16:34:51 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:34:51 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908271634.n7RGYpSs011321@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=426754 --- Comment #22 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-27 12:34:51 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=358906) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=358906) more -doc deps I think to be consistent we better have all the doc deps too. -- 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 Aug 27 16:36:07 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 12:36:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908271636.n7RGa7Mr012662@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=426754 --- Comment #23 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-27 12:36:07 EDT --- Erm, and: +BuildRequires: ghc-xmonad-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 bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Aug 27 19:31:42 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:31:42 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517141] Review Request: ghc-fgl - functional graph library for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908271931.n7RJVgNo028364@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=517141 Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(bos at serpentine.co |fedora-cvs? |m) | --- Comment #2 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-08-27 15:31:41 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-fgl Short Description: functional graph library for Haskell Owners: bos ynemoy petersen Branches: F-11 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- 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 Aug 27 19:37:24 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:37:24 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908271937.n7RJbOda029551@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=517144 Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE -- 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 Aug 27 19:49:20 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 15:49:20 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908271949.n7RJnKFD032081@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=517144 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-27 15:49:19 EDT --- ghc-HUnit-1.2.0.3-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-HUnit-1.2.0.3-1.fc11 -- 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 Aug 27 20:05:24 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:05:24 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908272005.n7RK5Oj6004679@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=517155 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-27 16:05:24 EDT --- ghc-OpenGL-2.2.1.1-1.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-OpenGL-2.2.1.1-1.fc11 -- 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 Aug 28 14:24:57 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:24:57 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517197] Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908281424.n7SEOv4V013405@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=517197 Yaakov Nemoy changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-28 10:24:56 EDT --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] (devshell)[yankee at koan ghc-GLUT]$ rpmlint -iv *{spec,rpm} ghc-GLUT.src: I: checking ghc-GLUT-devel.i686: I: checking ghc-GLUT-devel.ppc: I: checking ghc-GLUT-devel.x86_64: I: checking ghc-GLUT-doc.i686: I: checking ghc-GLUT-doc.ppc: I: checking ghc-GLUT-doc.x86_64: I: checking ghc-GLUT-prof.i686: I: checking ghc-GLUT-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-GLUT-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-GLUT-prof.i686: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-GLUT-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.4/GLUT-2.1.1.2/libHSGLUT-2.1.1.2_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. ghc-GLUT-prof.ppc: I: checking ghc-GLUT-prof.ppc: E: devel-dependency ghc-GLUT-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-GLUT-prof.ppc: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-GLUT-prof.ppc: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.10.4/GLUT-2.1.1.2/libHSGLUT-2.1.1.2_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. ghc-GLUT-prof.x86_64: I: checking ghc-GLUT-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-GLUT-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-GLUT-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-GLUT-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.4/GLUT-2.1.1.2/libHSGLUT-2.1.1.2_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. 10 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 6 warnings. >>> CHECK -- Normal for a haskell package MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . >>> CHECK MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . >>> CHECK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] >>> CHECK MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc.[4] >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] >>> CHECK MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] >>> CHECK MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. >>> CHECK MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] >>> CHECK MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8] >>> CHECK MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. >>> CHECK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [12] >>> CHECK MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [13] >>> CHECK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [14] >>> CHECK MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [15] >>> CHECK MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] >>> CHECK MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] >>> CHECK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18] >>> CHECK MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [18] >>> CHECK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [22] >>> CHECK MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24] >>> CHECK MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [25] >>> CHECK MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [26] >>> CHECK SHOULD Items: Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but is not required to do. SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [27] >>> CHECK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [29] >>> CHECK SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [30] >>> CHECK SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. >>> CHECK SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. [22] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [31] >>> CHECK SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. [32] >>> CHECK Resolution: PASS -- 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 Aug 28 14:31:13 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:31:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426752] Review Request: ghc-X11-xft - Haskell binding to Xft In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908281431.n7SEVDH6010869@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=426752 Jason Tibbitts changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #34 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-28 10:31:09 EDT --- Franches are named "F-10", "F-11", etc. I've fixed that up. CVS done. -- 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 Fri Aug 28 14:39:54 2009 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 16:39:54 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Platform is done Message-ID: <7f692fec0908280739i2a264b5bi51a4eba19b05d56f@mail.gmail.com> Hey List, I think i just banged out the last review for the Haskell Platform. I have a couple of questions about how do we stick to the current Platform release and still provide the latest and greatest versions of packages. I also want to know what's next. Here's some thoughts - Finish the haskell version of cabal2spec and switch the version in Fedora over to that. - Get proper dependency resolution in cabal2spec - Automate cabal2spec so that it can spit out a fully working package with little intervention - Make cabal2spec-diff more intelligent, so that if we apply a patch provided by it, it won't try to remove the lines we've filled in with generic macros (lines like license and changelog entries). - Find a broader set of core packages we want to see, and get those in as well. - Find CC licensed ascii art for a unicorn, so we can submit the can-i-have-a-pony package to Fedora Any other comments? Cheers, Yaakov From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Aug 28 14:39:01 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 10:39:01 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517141] Review Request: ghc-fgl - functional graph library for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908281439.n7SEd1L8012256@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=517141 Jason Tibbitts changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #3 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-28 10:39:00 EDT --- CVS done. -- 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 Aug 28 15:13:48 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 11:13:48 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908281513.n7SFDmod019253@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=426754 --- Comment #24 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-28 11:13:47 EDT --- SPEC: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-xmonad-contrib.spec SRPM: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-xmonad-contrib-0.8.1-8.fc11.src.rpm -- 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 Aug 28 16:04:37 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:04:37 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517197] Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908281604.n7SG4bnB029487@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=517197 Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-08-28 12:04:36 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-GLUT Short Description: bindings to the C GLUT library Owners: bos petersen ynemoy Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- 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 Aug 28 16:09:57 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:09:57 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517197] Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908281609.n7SG9vNL001955@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=517197 Jason Tibbitts changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts 2009-08-28 12:09:56 EDT --- I've just created the F-11 branch. If you really, really need a very early F-12 branch, we may be able to do that later today, so if that's what you need then go ahead and make another CVS request. CVS done. -- 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 Aug 28 22:00:23 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 18:00:23 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908282200.n7SM0NEq008485@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=517155 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-28 18:00:22 EDT --- ghc-OpenGL-2.2.1.1-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update ghc-OpenGL'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-9108 -- 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 Aug 31 09:56:00 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 05:56:00 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908310956.n7V9u01e027499@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=517144 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC| |petersen at redhat.com Resolution|CURRENTRELEASE | --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-31 05:55:59 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > >>> CHECK -> Presuming innocence here re: using the official tarballfor the Platform project. I didn't understand this comment: the reference src tarball is from hackage. > MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed > should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This > means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with > any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you > feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another > package owns, then please present that at package review time. [24] > >>> CHECK > SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A > package should not segfault instead of running, for example. > >>> CHECK Errm, HUnit is already in ghc.... So do we remove HUnit from ghc or drop this package for now? Looks like a typo in haskell-platform.cabal to me? Or am I totally confused? -- 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 Aug 31 10:04:26 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908311004.n7VA4QRi004887@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=517144 --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-31 06:02:45 EDT --- > Looks like a typo in haskell-platform.cabal to me? Correctly it is part of ghc-src-extralibs, which haskell-platform will replace of course. Anyway we don't need this until we drop extras from ghc. -- 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 Aug 31 10:09:38 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:09:38 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517197] Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908311009.n7VA9cUe029961@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=517197 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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 Aug 31 10:09:27 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:09:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517197] Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908311009.n7VA9RE1029923@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=517197 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |petersen at redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |loupgaroublond at gmail.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 Mon Aug 31 10:10:32 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:10:32 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517141] Review Request: ghc-fgl - functional graph library for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908311010.n7VAAW2P030341@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=517141 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |petersen at redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |loupgaroublond at gmail.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 Mon Aug 31 10:14:19 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:14:19 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908311014.n7VAEJCd030903@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=517144 --- Comment #8 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-31 06:14:18 EDT --- Are they the same version? Personally, i'd rather deliver as many libraries via subpackages anyways. -- 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 Aug 31 10:17:05 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:17:05 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908311017.n7VAH5sl007332@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=517144 --- Comment #9 from Yaakov Nemoy 2009-08-31 06:17:03 EDT --- Is the tarball from hackage then? Some of the tarballs Bryan used came from the platform tarball and for some reason did not checksum properly. It was the only problem we found, and for the matter of speed, i let it slide, as the reviewer. -- 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 Aug 31 10:33:07 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 06:33:07 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908311033.n7VAX7sN010046@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=426754 --- Comment #25 from Jens Petersen 2009-08-31 06:33:05 EDT --- * Thu Aug 27 2009 Yaakov M. Nemoy - 0.8.1-7 - removed bcond since xft will be in fedora soon Ok, I'll wait for ghc-X11-xft to get into rawhide before completing this 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 Mon Aug 31 17:04:26 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:04:26 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517144] Review Request: ghc-HUnit - unit testing support for Haskell In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908311704.n7VH4QAq018143@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=517144 --- Comment #10 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-08-31 13:04:26 EDT --- GHC 6.12 will be out within a matter of weeks (beta is scheduled for September 14), and won't include any extralibs, so let's just leave this as is. We'll be wanting to upgrade within the early lifetime of F-12. -- 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 Aug 31 23:42:33 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:33 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908312342.n7VNgXB6019853@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=517155 Fedora Update System changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |2.2.1.1-1.fc11 Resolution| |ERRATA -- 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 Aug 31 23:42:29 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 19:42:29 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517155] Review Request: ghc-OpenGL - bindings to the C OpenGL library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200908312342.n7VNgT0N008294@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=517155 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System 2009-08-31 19:42:28 EDT --- ghc-OpenGL-2.2.1.1-1.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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.