haskell-devel December 2009

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
45 discussions

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 547867] New: %{ghc_version} desn't expand properly
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 Aug '13

19 Aug '13

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(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: jochen(a)herr-schmitt.de QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)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.

1 6

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517197] New: Review Request: ghc-GLUT - bindings to the C GLUT library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 05 Oct '10

05 Oct '10

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(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: bos(a)serpentine.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Depends on: 517155 Classification: Fedora Bryan O'Sullivan <bos(a)serpentine.com> 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.

1 13

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 503250] New: Review Request: ghc-utf8-string - Support reading and writing UTF8 Strings
by Red Hat Bugzilla 15 Sep '10

15 Sep '10

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-utf8-string - Support reading and writing UTF8 Strings https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=503250 Summary: Review Request: ghc-utf8-string - Support reading and writing UTF8 Strings Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Status Whiteboard: NotReady Severity: medium Priority: low Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: oglesbyzm(a)gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: notting(a)redhat.com, fedora-package-review(a)redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Clone Of: 426750 Spec URL: http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-hinotify.spec SRPM URL: http://zoglesby.fedorapeople.org/ghc-utf8-string-0.3.4-1.fc11.src.rpm Description: This library provides a wrapper to the Linux Kernel's inotify feature,allowing applications to subscribe to notifications when a file is accessed or modified. -- 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.

1 36

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 509699] New: ~/.cabal/bin should be appended to PATH if available
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 May '10

19 May '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: ~/.cabal/bin should be appended to PATH if available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=509699 Summary: ~/.cabal/bin should be appended to PATH if available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: cabal-install AssignedTo: petersen(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: petersen(a)redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Description of problem: After installing cabal programs, it is annoying that they are not in PATH and one has to type the fully-qualified or relative path explicitly: eg ~/.cabal/bin/progname I think we can append ~/.cabal/bin to user's PATH if it exists. -- 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.

1 6

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 522953] New: update to darcs-2.3.0 stable cabal release
by Red Hat Bugzilla 11 Mar '10

11 Mar '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: update to darcs-2.3.0 stable cabal release https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=522953 Summary: update to darcs-2.3.0 stable cabal release Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: low Component: darcs AssignedTo: petersen(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: petersen(a)redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, jeremy(a)hinegardner.org, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Target Release: --- Description of problem: darcs should be updated to 2.3.0 stable. Unfortunately this requires hashed-storage and haskeline to be added to fedora. -- 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.

1 24

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 550711] New: ghc-GLUT-debuginfo contains no sources
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Jan '10

06 Jan '10

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(a)serpentine.com ReportedBy: ville.skytta(a)iki.fi QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, bos(a)serpentine.com, loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)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.

1 7

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 537979] Review Request: ghc-hashed-storage - Hashed file storage support
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Dec '09

31 Dec '09

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 <lvillani(a)binaryhelix.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Villani <lvillani(a)binaryhelix.net> 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@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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 537971] Review Request: ghc-mmap - Haskell binding to mmap
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 Dec '09

31 Dec '09

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 <lvillani(a)binaryhelix.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ON_DEV Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Lorenzo Villani <lvillani(a)binaryhelix.net> 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@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@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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 537979] Review Request: ghc-hashed-storage - Hashed file storage support
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Dec '09

30 Dec '09

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 537971] Review Request: ghc-mmap - Haskell binding to mmap
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 Dec '09

30 Dec '09

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel December 2009