From lvillani at binaryhelix.net Fri Dec 4 15:55:58 2009 From: lvillani at binaryhelix.net (Lorenzo Villani) Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 16:55:58 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] RFE: GHC packaging improvement proposal Message-ID: <200912041655.59023.lvillani@binaryhelix.net> An hearty 'hello' to Haskell SIG folks! I am a newcomer to Haskell (thanks to xmonad) and I plan to do some serious things with it (as soon as I get proficient with this elegant FP language). During the last two-three weeks I've been secretly working on the GHC package (6.12). As you know, GHC can now create shared libraries so I deemed that a little change in the .spec file was necessary. ____________________________________ PROPOSED LAYOUT * ghc: contains only the compiler, tools (such as ghc-pkg, etc) and libHSrts.a which seems to be (statically) linked in every application. In general: stuff needed only at compile time. * ghc-libs (and ghc-libs-static): contains the dynamic version of libHSghc which is *HUGE* (and I guess it's needed only by programs which want to access GHC internals -- I don't have it installed and xmonad, xmobar and such things work). * ghc-common: This subpackage contains packages.d/*.config files and owns core library directories, it is (mostly) empty and is required by ghc-runtime and ghc-runtime-static. * ghc-runtime (and ghc-runtime-static): nothing to say, it contains just the core libraries and their interface files (.hi/.dyn_hi) * ghc-prof: contains profiled (static) libraries, including the huge libHSghc. This is the biggest and monolithic package. ___________________________________________ NOTES + cabal-install 0.7.5 (from darcs) seems to work decently with this GHC release. + X11 library has problems with hsc2hs (one file has to be converted to UTF-8 before building the package) + ghc-libs-static and ghc-runtime-static Require ghc (these are useless without a compiler) while ghc-libs and ghc-runtime don't. + I decided to take libHSghc off the runtime package(s) because of its huge size and because it is not generally needed by other libraries/applications, thus making the runtime package small: [lvillani at enterprise x86_64]$ du -h * 24M ghc-6.12.0.20091201-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm 56K ghc-common-6.12.0.20091201-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm 8.4M ghc-doc-6.12.0.20091201-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm 8.8M ghc-libs-6.12.0.20091201-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm 8.6M ghc-libs-static-6.12.0.20091201-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm 25M ghc-prof-6.12.0.20091201-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm 7.6M ghc-runtime-6.12.0.20091201-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm 8.0M ghc-runtime-static-6.12.0.20091201-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm ___________________________________________ NOTES I still can't get Cabal to link shared libraries instead of static ones (tried --enable-shared, tried --disable-library-vanilla with no effect). This means that even if Cabal tells the compiler to produce dynamic libraries it doesn't link to them (thus making the whole "dynlib" thing almost useless at this point). I don't know if this is a bug or I am so dumb that I can't tell cabal- install what to do. ___________________________________________ LINKS http://gitorious.org/lvillani/specs/blobs/master/haskell/ghc/ghc.spec + I'm 101% sure that there are errors in that .spec file. I look forward to hear your thoughts! -- Lorenzo Villani -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 5 09:50:25 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 04:50:25 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912050950.nB59oPHN001755@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=517366 --- Comment #26 from Arun SAG 2009-12-05 04:50:24 EDT --- Spec URL: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/emacs-haskell-mode.spec SRPM URL: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/emacs-haskell-mode-2.7.0-1.fc12.src.rpm Koji build: F11 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1851091 Updated to latest version 2.7.0 -- 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 Sat Dec 5 10:34:19 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 05:34:19 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912051034.nB5AYJ9Y005444@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=517366 Chitlesh GOORAH changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |chitlesh at gmail.com --- Comment #27 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-12-05 05:32:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #25) > Thanks for the review, hope someone sponsors this package ; I'll sponsor since I've taken your package review request for irsim-mode. Can you give me your FAS username please ? Also, for spice-mode and irsim, I'm hoping to see them into EL-5 branch too. Are you going to package haskell-mode for EL-5 ? -- 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 Sat Dec 5 11:15:40 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 06:15:40 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912051115.nB5BFeGu014396@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=517366 --- Comment #28 from Arun SAG 2009-12-05 06:15:37 EDT --- (In reply to comment #27) > (In reply to comment #25) > > Thanks for the review, hope someone sponsors this package ; > > > I'll sponsor since I've taken your package review request for irsim-mode. > > Can you give me your FAS username please ? It is 'sagarun' > Also, for spice-mode and irsim, I'm hoping to see them into EL-5 branch too. yeah, sure > Are you going to package haskell-mode for EL-5 ? Yes, Koji build works fine EL-5 so i think there will be a problem in doing so. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1851124 -- 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 Sat Dec 5 11:26:57 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 06:26:57 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912051126.nB5BQv9Y016720@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=517366 --- Comment #29 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-12-05 06:26:54 EDT --- Arun, before I can support you. I would like to know whether you are familiar with rpm packaging. Don't take me wrong since I've got some packagers which I sponsor in the past are still badly packaging their tools. Hence I would appreciate if you can improve the draft spec file which I've uploaded for nescc. It has an emacs mode. So since it's in your field, I believe it should be simple for you. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/ticket/85 You can upload your spec file there. Also, can you package spice-mode for us. It seems you are the emacs expert :) https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/ticket/75 -- 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 Sat Dec 5 12:23:10 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 07:23:10 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912051223.nB5CNAG6003649@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=517366 --- Comment #30 from Arun SAG 2009-12-05 07:23:06 EDT --- (In reply to comment #29) > Arun, before I can support you. I would like to know whether you are familiar > with rpm packaging. Don't take me wrong since I've got some packagers which I > sponsor in the past are still badly packaging their tools. > > Hence I would appreciate if you can improve the draft spec file which I've > uploaded for nescc. It has an emacs mode. So since it's in your field, I > believe it should be simple for you. > > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/ticket/85 > > You can upload your spec file there. Ok, i will improve the emacs mode part in nescc draft spec. :-) > Also, can you package spice-mode for us. It seems you are the emacs expert :) > https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-electronic-lab/ticket/75 yes, i can package spice-mode. -- 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 Sat Dec 5 18:33:11 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 13:33:11 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912051833.nB5IXAPN016333@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=517366 --- Comment #31 from Shakthi Kannan 2009-12-05 13:33:10 EDT --- #08 In %build, you can use: emacs -batch -f batch-byte-compile *.el I have tested this package, and it works fine. -- 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 Sat Dec 5 18:37:01 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 13:37:01 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912051837.nB5Ib1nY021685@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=517366 --- Comment #32 from Jerry James 2009-12-05 13:37:01 EDT --- Actually, you can use: %_emacs_bytecompile *.el See /etc/rpm/macros.emacs for other available macros. -- 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 Sat Dec 5 19:11:12 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 5 Dec 2009 14:11:12 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912051911.nB5JBC84025256@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=517366 --- Comment #33 from Shakthi Kannan 2009-12-05 14:11:11 EDT --- %_emacs_bytecompile *.el is failing on my Fedora 12 laptop with: === OUTPUT === + /usr/bin/emacs -batch --no-init-file --no-site-file -f batch-byte-compile haskell-c.el haskell-cabal.el haskell-decl-scan.el haskell-doc.el haskell-font-lock.el haskell-ghci.el haskell-hugs.el haskell-indent.el haskell-indentation.el haskell-mode.el haskell-simple-indent.el haskell-site-file.el inf-haskell.el In toplevel form: haskell-c.el:28:1:Error: Cannot open load file: haskell-mode Wrote /home/foo/rpmbuild/BUILD/haskell-mode-2.7.0/haskell-cabal.elc In toplevel form: haskell-decl-scan.el:130:1:Error: Cannot open load file: haskell-mode In toplevel form: haskell-doc.el:356:1:Error: Cannot open load file: haskell-mode In toplevel form: haskell-font-lock.el:104:13:Error: Cannot open load file: haskell-mode In haskell-ghci-locate-next-error: haskell-ghci.el:302:32:Warning: `string-to-int' is an obsolete function (as of Emacs 22.1); use `string-to-number' instead. In end of data: haskell-ghci.el:334:1:Warning: the function `comint-mode' might not be defined at runtime. Wrote /home/foo/rpmbuild/BUILD/haskell-mode-2.7.0/haskell-ghci.elc In haskell-hugs-gen-load-file: haskell-hugs.el:283:25:Warning: `string-to-int' is an obsolete function (as of Emacs 22.1); use `string-to-number' instead. Wrote /home/foo/rpmbuild/BUILD/haskell-mode-2.7.0/haskell-hugs.elc Wrote /home/foo/rpmbuild/BUILD/haskell-mode-2.7.0/haskell-indent.elc In haskell-indentation-mode: haskell-indentation.el:100:32:Warning: assignment to free variable `haskell-indent-last-position' In haskell-indentation-indent-line: haskell-indentation.el:264:20:Warning: assignment to free variable `haskell-indent-last-position' haskell-indentation.el:272:20:Warning: reference to free variable `haskell-indent-last-position' Wrote /home/foo/rpmbuild/BUILD/haskell-mode-2.7.0/haskell-indentation.elc In end of data: haskell-mode.el:621:1:Warning: the function `compile-internal' is not known to be defined. Wrote /home/foo/rpmbuild/BUILD/haskell-mode-2.7.0/haskell-mode.elc Wrote /home/foo/rpmbuild/BUILD/haskell-mode-2.7.0/haskell-simple-indent.elc Wrote /home/foo/rpmbuild/BUILD/haskell-mode-2.7.0/haskell-site-file.elc In toplevel form: inf-haskell.el:38:1:Error: Cannot open load file: haskell-mode nilerror: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.rSeL06 (%build) RPM build errors: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.rSeL06 (%build) === END === Now, when I try using "emacs -batch -f batch-byte-compile *.el", I get the above error. But, using "emacs --batch --eval '(setq load-path (cons "." load-path))' -f batch-byte-compile *.el" builds fine 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 lvillani at binaryhelix.net Sun Dec 6 18:42:41 2009 From: lvillani at binaryhelix.net (Lorenzo Villani) Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 19:42:41 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] RFE: GHC packaging improvement proposal In-Reply-To: <200912041655.59023.lvillani@binaryhelix.net> References: <200912041655.59023.lvillani@binaryhelix.net> Message-ID: <200912061942.45845.lvillani@binaryhelix.net> JFYI: I moved the spec here: http://gitorious.org/lvillani/specs/blobs/raw/master/haskell/ghc/devel/ghc.spec ('master' branch holds my modifications, 'fedora-cvs' branch includes your version) -- Lorenzo Villani -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 8 23:50:33 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 18:50:33 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912082350.nB8NoX17020471@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=517366 Lorenzo Villani changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lvillani at binaryhelix.net --- Comment #34 from Lorenzo Villani 2009-12-08 18:50:32 EDT --- I had no problems rebuilding http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/emacs-haskell-mode-2.7.0-1.fc12.src.rpm on 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 petersen at redhat.com Wed Dec 9 00:03:19 2009 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Tue, 8 Dec 2009 19:03:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Re: %ghc_pkg_ver In-Reply-To: <4B1E3490.5060809@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1111482779.1848801260316999914.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> [cc'ing fedora-haskell-list as a headsup] > I was wondering whether it's supposed to work on F 11. I was trying > to build xmonad on F 11, and rpm gave me unresolved dependencies, > the rpm had the dependency of "xmonad = %ghc_pkg_ver", literally. Yeah I know it is ugly - we need ghc support in rpm... > I eventually > just dropped versions of these dependencies before compiling the > package, so it works for me now. Ok :) I pushed the new ghc-rpm-macros to updates yesterday - but I should really make the version dependency on it explicit in the packages. Jens From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 9 15:36:46 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 10:36:46 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460974] Review Request: xmobar - status bar for X In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912091536.nB9FakgJ012633@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=460974 Ben Boeckel changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mathstuf at gmail.com --- Comment #11 from Ben Boeckel 2009-12-09 10:36:45 EDT --- Ping. Status update on this? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Dec 10 18:39:24 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:39:24 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 546376] Review Request: ghc-chalmers-lava2000 - Haskell chalmers-lava2000 library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912101839.nBAIdOQ8015815@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=546376 Shakthi Kannan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-haskell-list at redhat. | |com, shakthimaan 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 petersen at redhat.com Fri Dec 11 07:27:35 2009 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:27:35 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] ghc-HUnit not present in F-12? In-Reply-To: <1971881055.2055971260516200707.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <571768177.2056071260516455384.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> (We should really make a separate bugs list or I should start filtering the bugzilla mails...;) ----- "Bryan O'Sullivan" wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541372 See the review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517144 where I already asked why we were adding the package: it is only needed for ghc-6.12. > I tried to see if I could reproduce it on F-12, which I'm now running, > but in fact ghc-HUnit isn't available at all for F-12. I've no idea why Because I blocked for exactly the above reasonble. ;) > , or what to do about this. Thanks for asking - I just untagged it from updates-testing in koji - hope that helps otherwise we can ask releng to take it out of the repo if it is still there. But for the reporter he just need to remove it but he probably knows that already. Anyway we should should probably start to prepare reviews for the other packages missing from 6.12. :) Jens -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Dec 11 07:33:55 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:33:55 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 541372] ghc-HUnit conflicts with ghc-6.10 (f11-updates-testing) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912110733.nBB7XtMt024326@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=541372 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|ghc-HUnit conflicts with |ghc-HUnit conflicts with |ghc. |ghc-6.10 | |(f11-updates-testing) -- 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 Dec 11 07:32:43 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:32:43 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 541372] ghc-HUnit conflicts with ghc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912110732.nBB7WhP8003640@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=541372 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED CC| |fedora-haskell-list at redhat. | |com Platform|i586 |All AssignedTo|bos at serpentine.com |petersen at redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen 2009-12-11 02:32:42 EDT --- ghc-HUnit should not have been pushed to f11. It will be needed for ghc 6.12 in Fedora 13. I untagged it in koji from f11 updates-testing so hoefully it will go away. Maybe I was too quick to kill the bodhi ticket before the package could get pulled from the repos? :-/ -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From petersen at redhat.com Fri Dec 11 07:57:05 2009 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 02:57:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] RFE: GHC packaging improvement proposal In-Reply-To: <416396220.2056701260517568046.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1605600921.2057021260518225325.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Hi Lorenzo, and welcome to the SIG! :) Just noticed your mail. > I am a newcomer to Haskell (thanks to xmonad) and I plan to do some > serious things with it (as soon as I get proficient with this elegant FP > language). Great (BTW I just pushed xmonad-0.9 into f12-testing - should appear soon.) > During the last two-three weeks I've been secretly working on the GHC > package (6.12). As you know, GHC can now create shared libraries so I deemed > that a little change in the .spec file was necessary. Okay cool - better not to work in secret though :) - I think the current ghc.spec in pkg cvs already supports shared libs quite a bit now but look forward to looking at your ideas. :) > * ghc: contains only the compiler, tools (such as ghc-pkg, etc) and > libHSrts.a which seems to be (statically) linked in every application. > In general: stuff needed only at compile time. Yeah but I have seen ghc package install errors when static libs are not around - probably something that upstream needs to fix. > * ghc-libs (and ghc-libs-static): contains the dynamic version of > libHSghc > which is *HUGE* (and I guess it's needed only by programs which want > to access > GHC internals -- I don't have it installed and xmonad, xmobar and such > things work). Cool - guess we could have done that long ago... > * ghc-common: This subpackage contains packages.d/*.config files and > owns core library directories, it is (mostly) empty and is required by > ghc-runtime and ghc-runtime-static. > * ghc-runtime (and ghc-runtime-static): nothing to say, it contains > just the core libraries and their interface files (.hi/.dyn_hi) I think shared libs and interfaces should be separated. > + cabal-install 0.7.5 (from darcs) seems to work decently with this That's right. > + I decided to take libHSghc off the runtime package(s) because of > its huge size and because it is not generally needed by other > libraries/applications, thus making the runtime package small: Aha good idea. > I still can't get Cabal to link shared libraries instead of static Pass the option "--ghc-option=-dynamic" to cabal configure. > http://gitorious.org/lvillani/specs/blobs/master/haskell/ghc/ghc.spec > + I'm 101% sure that there are errors in that .spec file. It is shame you branched off 6.12.0.20091010-2.fc13, Bryan and I committed quite few changes in cvs since then. I know cvs is not a DVCS - fedora pkg cvs may be moving to git next year... :) The current spec file works for rc2 anyway and provides shared libraries. Going to look through your spec file now. In future it would be helpfil if you could send us a patch or put it into bugzilla if you like and I can review and integrate to cvs. And join us on freenode #fedora-haskell if you care for irc. Thanks, Jens From bugzilla at redhat.com Sat Dec 12 03:46:57 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 22:46:57 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912120346.nBC3kvDZ019390@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=517366 --- Comment #35 from Arun SAG 2009-12-11 22:46:55 EDT --- Hi, Updated the package to make it work with centos. Spec URL: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/emacs-haskell-mode.spec SRPM URL: http://sagarun.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/emacs-haskell-mode-2.7.0-3.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 Sun Dec 13 16:34:22 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 11:34:22 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 546376] Review Request: ghc-chalmers-lava2000 - Haskell chalmers-lava2000 library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912131634.nBDGYMsh005601@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=546376 Chitlesh GOORAH changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |chitlesh at gmail.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 lvillani at binaryhelix.net Sun Dec 13 19:48:25 2009 From: lvillani at binaryhelix.net (Lorenzo Villani) Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 20:48:25 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] RFE: GHC packaging improvement proposal In-Reply-To: <1605600921.2057021260518225325.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> References: <1605600921.2057021260518225325.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200912132048.45578.lvillani@binaryhelix.net> On Friday 11 December 2009 08:57:05 you wrote: > [...] > Okay cool - better not to work in secret though :) - My bad, I wanted to have something working before announcing it to the world. It took some time to get into ghc packaging. :-) > [...] > Yeah but I have seen ghc package install errors when static libs > are not around - probably something that upstream needs to fix. Actually, there are many build-time errors when GhcLibWays doesn't contain 'v'. (There's a .spec file in the 'experimental' branch but I can't build it unless I re-add 'v' to GhcLibWays -- build system issue?) > [...] > I think shared libs and interfaces should be separated. Right, the 'experimental' branch has a modified .spec file. > [...] > Pass the option "--ghc-option=-dynamic" to cabal configure. I tried that already but maybe there's another issue with my ?ber-broken setup ;-) > It is shame you branched off 6.12.0.20091010-2.fc13, Bryan and > I committed quite few changes in cvs since then. I know cvs is not > a DVCS - fedora pkg cvs may be moving to git next year... :) > The current spec file works for rc2 anyway and provides shared > libraries. Maybe I should use 'git cvsimport'... > Going to look through your spec file now. > In future it would be helpfil if you could send us a patch or > put it into bugzilla if you like and I can review and integrate > to cvs. You can clone the repo and 'git diff' between master and fedora-cvs branch. > And join us on freenode #fedora-haskell if you care for irc. It's already in my autojoin list. (I'm 'lvillani' on IRC). -- Lorenzo Villani -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From petersen at redhat.com Tue Dec 15 00:03:32 2009 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 19:03:32 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Need adding to the list In-Reply-To: <648775136.2057171260518542119.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Message-ID: <729174218.2252981260835412707.JavaMail.root@zmail02.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> Oops missed this too. ----- "Bryan O'Sullivan" wrote: > Could whoever owns the list please whitelist bos at fedoraproject.org ? I get bounces every time I do something in CVS. It is a "known" problem (to me anyway) and I got so used to... (It is caused by the haskell-sig on packages in Package DB we should ask fedora infrastructure what to do about it though now is probably not the best time...) I talked to the infrastructure guys and it should be better now but cvs commits are not reaching the list yet so it needs to be tweaked a bit more. Jens -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 15 20:42:21 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 15:42:21 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547867] New: %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547867 Summary: %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly Product: Fedora Version: 11 Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: high Component: ghc-rpm-macros AssignedTo: loupgaroublond at gmail.com ReportedBy: jochen at herr-schmitt.de QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: petersen at redhat.com, loupgaroublond at gmail.com, fedora-haskell-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora I want to tryout ghc-6.12.1 on my system and have installed ghc-rpm-macros-0.3.0-1 on my system. Because I have trouble to compile my packages, I have try out the following command: $ rpm -q --eval '%{ghc_version}' and got the following output: error: Recursion depth(17) greater than max(16) 15< (empty) 14< (empty) 13< (empty) 12< (empty) 11< (empty) 10< (empty) 9< (empty) 8< (empty) 7< (empty) 6< (empty) 5< (empty) 4< (empty) 3< (empty) 2< (empty) 1< (empty) 0< (empty) If I type $ ghc --numeric-version I will get 6.12.1 which I expected for $ rpm -q --eval '%{ghc_version}' Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -- 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 Dec 15 21:36:20 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:36:20 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547867] %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912152136.nBFLaKHd013955@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=547867 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|11 |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Dec 15 21:36:04 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:36:04 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547867] %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912152136.nBFLa4Xl013896@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=547867 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|loupgaroublond at gmail.com |petersen at redhat.com --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen 2009-12-15 16:36:03 EDT --- Thanks for the report - I have a fix that will be coming out in rawhide shortly now that cvs and koji are back after the move. :) -- 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 Dec 15 21:56:57 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:56:57 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547867] %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912152156.nBFLuvJD019171@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=547867 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen 2009-12-15 16:56:56 EDT --- Please try 0.3.1 building now: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1874097 -- 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 Dec 15 22:00:31 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 17:00:31 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547867] %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912152200.nBFM0VmE001360@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=547867 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen 2009-12-15 17:00:30 EDT --- or better http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=147239 -- 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 Dec 16 00:11:08 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 19:11:08 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547867] %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912160011.nBG0B806020926@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=547867 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen 2009-12-15 19:11:07 EDT --- Though I think I need to warn and post to fedora-haskell-list that there will likely be some more adjustments to the macros and an update needed for cabal2spec for 6.12.1. So you may want to hold off testing a little longer if want something stable to work against, but early testing is welcome. :) -- 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 Dec 16 10:13:51 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:13:51 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547997] New: rpmbuild -bs became more strict and chokes on undefined macros in Requires Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: rpmbuild -bs became more strict and chokes on undefined macros in Requires https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=547997 Summary: rpmbuild -bs became more strict and chokes on undefined macros in Requires Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: rpm AssignedTo: pmatilai at redhat.com ReportedBy: petersen at redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: pmatilai at redhat.com, jnovy at redhat.com, ffesti at redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list at redhat.com Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Description of problem: I can understand on BuildRequires but rpm now seems to need to be able to expand macros in Requires to build srpms? Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 4.8.0-0.beta1.3 How reproducible: every time Steps to Reproduce: 1. use macro like %ghc_version not defined in rpm or redhat-rpm-config (base) in package .spec file 2. try to build in dist-f13 in koji 3. job fails while generating srpm Actual results: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1874770 Expected results: Be allowed like in dist-f12? Additional info: We need ghc macros in rpm or redhat-rpm-config like we have for ocaml. See ghc-rpm-macros package for %ghc_version and more. Without fixing this we can't build ghc library packages for rawhide and ghc-6.12.1 was just released so we need to rebuild them all. -- 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 Dec 16 11:05:50 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:05:50 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912161105.nBGB5ov9009913@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=517366 Chitlesh GOORAH changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC|chitlesh at gmail.com | Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | 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 Wed Dec 16 14:03:55 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 09:03:55 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547997] rpmbuild -bs became more strict and chokes on undefined macros in Requires In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912161403.nBGE3thC010495@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=547997 Rex Dieter changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rdieter at math.unl.edu --- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter 2009-12-16 09:03:55 EDT --- Fwiw, a workaround is easy enough. For any undefined macro, say, %{foo}, change: Requires: %{foo} to %{?foo:Requires: %{foo}} This technique can be applied to BuildRequires as well. -- 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 Dec 17 01:29:55 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:29:55 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547997] rpmbuild -bs became more strict and chokes on undefined macros in Requires In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912170129.nBH1Tt0g008383@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=547997 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen 2009-12-16 20:29:54 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Requires: %{foo} > to > %{?foo:Requires: %{foo}} Thanks Rex that helps a lot actually. :) It has given me enough ideas to experiment a bit - perhaps after that I may be able to close this actually. -- 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 Dec 17 07:20:11 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 02:20:11 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547997] rpmbuild -bs became more strict and chokes on undefined macros in Requires In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912170720.nBH7KBIS032071@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=547997 Panu Matilainen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE --- Comment #3 from Panu Matilainen 2009-12-17 02:20:11 EDT --- Yup, this is one of the fundamental chicken-and-egg problems with spec files: there's no guarantee that a spec can be correctly parsed if build-requires are missing, but in order to parse out build-requires from the spec, rpmbuild needs to be able to parse the entire spec... Generally, if there's a chance for a macro to be undefined, the spec should be written to deal with it somehow. The approach shown by Rex works fine for Requires and many others, but with BuildRequires it can cause the BuildRequire that would correct the situation to be missed. Another variant that avoids that would be BuildRequires: ghc %{?ghc_version:= %{ghc_version}} Anyway, I've loosened up the new checks to permit unexpanded macros to slip through the valid character checks until we have a better fix for this. Built into 4.8.0-0.beta1.4 in rawhide now. -- 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 Dec 18 10:12:42 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:12:42 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547997] rpmbuild -bs became more strict and chokes on undefined macros in Requires In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912181012.nBIACgBt028956@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=547997 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen 2009-12-18 05:12:41 EDT --- Ah thanks that saves we having to write extra ghc macros for now then. :) http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=147621 -- 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 Sat Dec 19 18:24:26 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:24:26 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912191824.nBJIOQJH006268@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=517366 Chitlesh GOORAH changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |chitlesh at gmail.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #36 from Chitlesh GOORAH 2009-12-19 13:24:22 EDT --- - MUST: The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. - MUST: The spec file name matches the base package emacs-%{name} - MUST: The package meets the Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meet other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. - MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. - MUST: The spec file for the package is be legible. - MUST: The sources used to build the package must matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. - MUST: The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least i686. - MUST: All build dependencies is listed in BuildRequires. - MUST: The spec file handles locales properly. Emacs-haskell-mode does not have any. - MUST: If the package does not contain shared library files located in the dynamic linker's default paths. Emacs-haskell-mode does not have any. - MUST: the package is not designed to be relocatable - MUST: the package owns all directories that it creates. - MUST: the package does not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. - MUST: Permissions on files are set properly. - MUST: The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). - MUST: The package consistently uses macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: The package contains code, or permissible content. This is described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines. - MUST: There are no Large documentation files. Emacs-spice-mode does not have any. - MUST: %doc does not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. - MUST: There are no Header files or static libraries - MUST: The package does not contain library files with a suffix - MUST: Package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives - MUST: Package containing GUI applications includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. - MUST: Package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. SHOULD Items: - SHOULD: mock builds successfully in i686. - SHOULD: The reviewer tested that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. - SHOULD: No scriptlets were used, those scriptlets must be sane. 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 Sat Dec 19 18:35:09 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 13:35:09 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912191835.nBJIZ9oB006840@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=517366 Arun SAG changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #37 from Arun SAG 2009-12-19 13:35:08 EDT --- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: emacs-haskell-mode Short Description: Haskell editing mode for Emacs Owners: sagarun chitlesh Branches: F-11 F-12 EL-5 -- 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 Dec 20 12:25:43 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 07:25:43 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 546376] Review Request: ghc-chalmers-lava2000 - Haskell chalmers-lava2000 library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912201225.nBKCPhYZ006524@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=546376 --- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan 2009-12-20 07:25:43 EDT --- * Created patch to remove verification modules in build that use wrapper scripts that require, and invoke third party non-free binaries. * Remove Scripts/ folder. * Wrote README.fedora and removed default README. Spec URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/ghc-chalmers-lava2000.spec SRPM URL: http://shakthimaan.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/ghc-chalmers-lava2000-1.1.1-1.fc12.src.rpm Successful Koji builds for F-11, F-12: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1881728 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1881732 -- 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 Dec 21 10:02:26 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 05:02:26 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 530688] Review Request: ghc-language-c - Haskell language-c library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912211002.nBLA2Q9N027923@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=530688 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(michael.silvanus@ | |gmail.com) --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen 2009-12-21 05:02:26 EDT --- https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVS_admin_requests ping? -- 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 Dec 21 20:04:16 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:04:16 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912212004.nBLK4GVh015457@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=517366 Kevin Fenzi changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ --- Comment #38 from Kevin Fenzi 2009-12-21 15:04:15 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 Tue Dec 22 03:31:05 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 22:31:05 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912220331.nBM3V5gG015250@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=517366 --- Comment #39 from Jens Petersen 2009-12-21 22:31:05 EDT --- Thanks :) I added haskell-sig to the CC list for this 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 Wed Dec 23 10:23:24 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:23:24 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912231023.nBNANOD7015754@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=517366 NOREPLY changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |gc at pps.jussieu.fr -- 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 Dec 23 15:23:40 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:23:40 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 550102] Review Request: ghc-mtl - Haskell Monad Transformer Library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912231523.nBNFNex2011810@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=550102 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|medium |high 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 Dec 23 15:46:14 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:46:14 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 550105] Review Request: ghc-parsec - Haskell parser library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912231546.nBNFkEFu023316@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=550105 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |fedora-haskell-list at redhat. | |com -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 23 15:49:15 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:49:15 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 550105] Review Request: ghc-parsec - Haskell parser library In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912231549.nBNFnFBh023648@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=550105 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|medium |high -- 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 Dec 23 15:57:31 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:57:31 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 522820] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib-bluetilebranch - bluetile branch of xmonad addon libraries In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912231557.nBNFvVSc016293@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=522820 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|medium |low -- 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 Dec 23 15:57:11 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:57:11 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 522819] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-bluetilebranch - bluetile branch of xmonad libraries In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912231557.nBNFvBiZ024662@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=522819 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|medium |low -- 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 Dec 23 15:58:33 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:58:33 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 522821] Review Request: bluetile - A modern tiling window manager with a gentle learning curve In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912231558.nBNFwXsS016570@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=522821 Jens Petersen changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|medium |low -- 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 Sat Dec 26 23:51:12 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 18:51:12 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 550711] New: ghc-GLUT-debuginfo contains no sources Message-ID: Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: ghc-GLUT-debuginfo contains no sources https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=550711 Summary: ghc-GLUT-debuginfo contains no sources Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: ghc-GLUT AssignedTo: bos at serpentine.com ReportedBy: ville.skytta at iki.fi QAContact: extras-qa at fedoraproject.org CC: petersen at redhat.com, bos at serpentine.com, loupgaroublond at gmail.com, fedora-haskell-list at redhat.com Blocks: 496968 Classification: Fedora ghc-GLUT-debuginfo 2.1.1.2-3.fc13 contains no sources, which might be an indication of $RPM_OPT_FLAGS (specifically -g) not being honored or binaries being stripped too early. Is this expected behavior with ghc-* packages? See bug 496968. Same thing apparently with recent ghc-OpenGL, ghc-tar, and ghc-zlib Rawhide builds. -- 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 Dec 27 19:21:52 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 14:21:52 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 550711] ghc-GLUT-debuginfo contains no sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912271921.nBRJLqFJ017728@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=550711 Bryan O'Sullivan changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG --- Comment #1 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-12-27 14:21:52 EDT --- Hmm, none of the ghc-* packages should be emitting debuginfo packages: # ghc does not emit debug information %global debug_package %{nil} -- 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 Dec 28 20:11:03 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 15:11:03 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 550711] ghc-GLUT-debuginfo contains no sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912282011.nBSKB3B9010833@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=550711 Ville Skytt? changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NOTABUG | --- Comment #2 from Ville Skytt? 2009-12-28 15:11:02 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Hmm, none of the ghc-* packages should be emitting debuginfo packages: > > # ghc does not emit debug information > %global debug_package %{nil} Sorry to be blunt, but would you mind actually checking things before closing bugs? All of the packages mentioned in the initial comment *do* emit debuginfo packages. They have the line you cited commented out. http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/ghc-GLUT/ghc-GLUT.spec?revision=1.6&view=markup http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/ghc-OpenGL/ghc-OpenGL.spec?revision=1.6&view=markup http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/ghc-tar/ghc-tar.spec?revision=1.4&view=markup http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/ghc-zlib/ghc-zlib.spec?revision=1.18&view=markup -- 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 Dec 28 22:30:31 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:30:31 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 550711] ghc-GLUT-debuginfo contains no sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912282230.nBSMUVtn032175@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=550711 --- Comment #3 from Bryan O'Sullivan 2009-12-28 17:30:31 EDT --- It's perfectly fine to be blunt, but I did actually check, but I looked at the F-12 branch rather than the devel branch. It might be a good policy not to make accusations about what someone did or didn't do when you don't actually know. That could easily be misinterpreted as rudeness, which would not be so perfectly fine. Jens, what's the story with the debuginfo generation being re-enabled? -- 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 Dec 28 23:01:47 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:01:47 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 550711] ghc-GLUT-debuginfo contains no sources In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912282301.nBSN1lKT011863@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=550711 --- Comment #4 from Ville Skytt? 2009-12-28 18:01:46 EDT --- This bug is reported against rawhide, the initial comment specifically mentions a NEVR containing f13, there's no way I could tell that you checked F-12, and I think it's quite fair to assume that if rawhide had been actually checked, this bug would have not been closed as NOTABUG along with the text in comment 1. But nevermind, mistakes do happen, I'll shut up now and let you find out the cause and what to do about it. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Dec 30 16:16:59 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:16:59 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 537979] Review Request: ghc-hashed-storage - Hashed file storage support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912301616.nBUGGxMX000480@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=537979 Lorenzo Villani changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lvillani at binaryhelix.net AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |lvillani at binaryhelix.net -- 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 Dec 30 16:16:53 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 30 Dec 2009 11:16:53 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 537971] Review Request: ghc-mmap - Haskell binding to mmap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912301616.nBUGGruD023405@bzweb02.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=537971 Lorenzo Villani changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lvillani at binaryhelix.net AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |lvillani at binaryhelix.net -- 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 Dec 31 16:01:14 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:01:14 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 537971] Review Request: ghc-mmap - Haskell binding to mmap In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912311601.nBVG1Et4030422@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=537971 Lorenzo Villani changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_DEV Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Villani 2009-12-31 11:01:11 EDT --- Please ignore numbers in square brackets. # MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. [lvillani at normandy tmp]$ rpmlint /home/lvillani/devel/rpm/rpms/x86_64/ghc-mmap-devel-0.4.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm /home/lvillani/devel/rpm/rpms/x86_64/ghc-mmap-doc-0.4.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm /home/lvillani/devel/rpm/rpms/x86_64/ghc-mmap-prof-0.4.1-1.fc12.x86_64.rpm ghc-mmap-0.4.1-1.fc12.src.rpm ghc-mmap-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-mmap-devel ghc-mmap-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-mmap-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.4/mmap-0.4.1/libHSmmap-0.4.1_p.a ghc-mmap.src: W: strange-permission mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz 0600 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. -> These are all expected errors: OK # MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . -> OK # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . -> OK # MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . -> OK # MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . -> BSD (3 clause) License: ok # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] -> BSD is a valid short name for 3-clause BSD license. # 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] -> OK # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] -> OK # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] -> OK # 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. [lvillani at normandy tmp]$ md5sum mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz.1 2ebe9772a0efd0a6febfbc67c02faab2 mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz 2ebe9772a0efd0a6febfbc67c02faab2 mmap-0.4.1.tar.gz.1 (.1 comes from upstream) -> OK # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] -> OK # 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] -> OK # 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. -> OK # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] -> OK # 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] -> No shared libraries: OK # MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] -> OK # 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. [12] -> OK # 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. [13] -> OK # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [14] -> OK # 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. [15] -> OK # MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16] -> OK # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17] -> OK # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18] -> OK # 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). [19] -> OK # 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. [19] -> OK # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20] -> OK # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21] -> Exception: All libraries produced by GHC (6.10) are statically linked -> OK # MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [22] -> OK # 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. [20] -> OK # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [23] -> OK # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[21] -> OK # 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. [24] -> OK # 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. [25] -> OK # MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26] -> OK # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. -> OK ** 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 Thu Dec 31 16:24:10 2009 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 11:24:10 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 537979] Review Request: ghc-hashed-storage - Hashed file storage support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200912311624.nBVGOAtP002029@bzweb01.app.bz.hst.phx2.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=537979 Lorenzo Villani changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Villani 2009-12-31 11:24:08 EDT --- Ignore numbers in square brackets. # MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.[1] Unable to build the package locally with the required version of mmap. Can you try to bump the spec to build a newer version? # MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK # MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] . OK # MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK # MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . BSD (3 clause) is a valid license. # MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [3] BSD is a valid short name for the 3-clause license. # 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] OK # MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5] OK # MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6] OK # 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. [lvillani at normandy tmp]$ md5sum hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz.1 8310b334aa0464f7a72d27c45b042dfd hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz 8310b334aa0464f7a72d27c45b042dfd hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz.1 (.1 is the tarball downloaded from upstream website) OK. # MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [7] Unable to build package. # 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] Unable to build package. # 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. NOT OK: The specfile is missing a dependency on ghc-mmap-{devel,prof} # MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.[9] Unable to build package. # 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] Static libraries: OK # MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11] Unable to build package. # 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. [12] OK # 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. [13] Unable to build package. # MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [14] OK # 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. [15] OK # MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [16] OK # MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [17] OK # MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [18] OK # 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). [19] OK # 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. [19] Unable to build package. # MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [20] OK # MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [21] Exception: GHC 6.10 creates only statically linked libraries -> OK # MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). [22] OK # 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. [20] OK (No shared libraries with GHC) # MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [23] OK # MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.[21] OK (we don't use libtool) # 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. [24] OK (not a GUI application) # 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. [25] # MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [26] Unable to build package. # MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27] Unable to build package. Not approving, 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.