haskell-devel May 2012

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
155 discussions

[Bug 710031] Review Request: ghc-Agda - Dependently typed functional programming language
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 May '12

31 May '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710031 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 710031] Review Request: ghc-Agda - Dependently typed functional programming language
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 May '12

31 May '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710031 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-2.fc16 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 815583] Review Request: ghc-edit-distance - Levenshtein and restricted Damerau-Levenshtein edit distances
by Red Hat Bugzilla 31 May '12

31 May '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815583 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-05-30 20:55:36 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-edit-distance-0.2.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 710031] Review Request: ghc-Agda - Dependently typed functional programming language
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 May '12

30 May '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710031 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 710031] Review Request: ghc-Agda - Dependently typed functional programming language
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 May '12

30 May '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710031 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|Ready | Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thanks again for the review. Sure, I will fix the License tag when importing. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-Agda Short Description: Dependently typed functional programming language Owners: petersen Branches: f17 f16 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 710031] Review Request: ghc-Agda - Dependently typed functional programming language
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 May '12

30 May '12

1 0

[Bug 710031] Review Request: ghc-Agda - Dependently typed functional programming language
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 May '12

30 May '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710031 --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- > [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 > Note: defattr(....) present in %files -n emacs-agda section. This is OK > if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed No plans presently to build for epel5. > [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > The http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Agda page says "OtherLicense" while > http://code.haskell.org/Agda/LICENSE says it is a BSD license. Why does the > .spec file say it is MIT license? The LICENSE file is MIT, plus one file which is BSD. So strictly speaking I guess the Fedora License tag should actually be "MIT and BSD" I guess. I think older Cabal did not support the MIT license tag so that is why it is OtherLicense. Probably the .cabal could/should be updated upstream to say MIT now. I will try to ask them about it - anyway don't think it blocks this review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 710031] Review Request: ghc-Agda - Dependently typed functional programming language
by Red Hat Bugzilla 30 May '12

30 May '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710031 Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== C/C++ ==== [x]: MUST Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [-]: MUST Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: MUST Package contains no static executables. [-]: MUST Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [-]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [!]: MUST Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Waived. [-]: MUST Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: The package did not built BR could therefore not be checked or the package failed to build because of missing BR [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files -n emacs-agda section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. The http://hackage.haskell.org/package/Agda page says "OtherLicense" while http://code.haskell.org/Agda/LICENSE says it is a BSD license. Why does the .spec file say it is MIT license? [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. $ rpmlint ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm ghc-Agda.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parameterized -> parameter ghc-Agda.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mixfix -> mix fix, mix-fix, mix ghc-Agda.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intuitionistic -> intuition, contortionist, constitutions ghc-Agda.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US foundational -> foundation, unconditional ghc-Agda.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-Agda-2.3.0.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-Agda.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parameterized -> parameter ghc-Agda.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mixfix -> mix fix, mix-fix, mix ghc-Agda.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intuitionistic -> intuition, contortionist, constitutions ghc-Agda.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US foundational -> foundation, unconditional ghc-Agda.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US emacs -> Emacs, macs, maces 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-Agda-devel-2.3.0.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-Agda-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parameterized -> parameter ghc-Agda-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mixfix -> mix fix, mix-fix, mix ghc-Agda-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US intuitionistic -> intuition, contortionist, constitutions ghc-Agda-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US foundational -> foundation, unconditional 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. $ rpmlint ../SPECS/ghc-Agda.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/shaks/710031/Agda-2.3.0.1.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 3caa2466ae4f925dd37320336e2e839c MD5SUM upstream package : 3caa2466ae4f925dd37320336e2e839c [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files -n emacs-agda section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 External plugins: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 710031] Review Request: ghc-Agda - Dependently typed functional programming language
by Red Hat Bugzilla 29 May '12

29 May '12

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=710031 Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 710031] Review Request: ghc-Agda - Dependently typed functional programming language
by Red Hat Bugzilla 29 May '12

29 May '12

1 0

← Newer
1
...
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
...
16
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel May 2012