June 2012 - haskell-devel - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 831123] Review Request: ghc-lambdabot-utils - Utility libraries for the Lambdabot IRC bot

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831123 Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |haskell-devel(a)lists.fedorap | |roject.org --- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> --- $ rpmlint ghc-lambdabot-utils.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-lambdabot-utils-4.2.1-1.fc16.src.rpm ghc-lambdabot-utils.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell -> Haskell 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-lambdabot-utils-4.2.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-lambdabot-utils.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell -> Haskell 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-lambdabot-utils-devel-4.2.1-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-lambdabot-utils-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell -> Haskell 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Successful Koji builds for F16, F17 and F18 respectively: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4153888 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4153893 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4153896 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 831116] Review Request: ghc-MonadRandom - A random number generation Monad

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831116 Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |haskell-devel(a)lists.fedorap | |roject.org --- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> --- $ rpmlint ghc-MonadRandom.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc16.src.rpm ghc-MonadRandom.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-MonadRandom-0.1.6-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-MonadRandom.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-MonadRandom-devel-0.1.6-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-MonadRandom-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) monad -> nomad, gonad, Mona 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Successful Koji builds for F16, F17 and F18 respectively: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4153476 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4153477 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4153481 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 831092] Review Request: ghc-readline - A Haskell interface to the GNU readline library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=831092 Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |haskell-devel(a)lists.fedorap | |roject.org --- Comment #1 from Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> --- $ rpmlint ghc-readline.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-readline-1.0.1.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-readline.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csh -> sch, cs, ch 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-readline-devel-1.0.1.0-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm ghc-readline-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csh -> sch, cs, ch 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-readline-1.0.1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm ghc-readline.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US csh -> sch, cs, ch 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Successful Koji builds for F16, F17 and F18 respectively: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4153431 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4153430 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4153432 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 662259] Review Request: git-annex - Manage files with git, without checking their contents in

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662259 --- Comment #37 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Created attachment 591068 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=591068&action=edit git-annex.spec-3.patch Patch for docs subpackage "Documentation" and duplicate GPL file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 662259] Review Request: git-annex - Manage files with git, without checking their contents in

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662259 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|Ready | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 662259] Review Request: git-annex - Manage files with git, without checking their contents in

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662259 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #36 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Sorry for the delay in reviewing. Here is my review by hand: Here is the review: +:ok, NA: not applicable, !: need attention MUST Items: [!] MUST: rpmlint output [1] Please fix the RPM group for the docs subpackage when importing. [+] MUST: package named according to Package Naming Guidelines [+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name} [2] [+] MUST: meet Packaging Guidelines [+] MUST: Fedora approved license and Licensing Guidelines [+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license. [3] [+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source [4] [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English [5] and legible. [6] [+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release (from upstream URL) 7807387d240e6343853718097e46ec15 git-annex-3.20120522.tar.gz [+] MUST: successfully compile and build into binary rpms on a primary arch [7] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4153193 [NA] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs [8] [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations [9] [NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10] [+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [11] [NA] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review [12] [+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [13] [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [14] But I recommend removing the extra GPL file in the docs subpackage [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [15] [+] MUST: consistently use macros [16] [+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17] [+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage. [18] [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [18] [NA] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. [19] [NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [20] [NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package. [19] [NA] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency [21] [+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be removed in the spec. [20] [NA] 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. [22] [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [23] [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24] SHOULD Items: [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27] [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example. [+] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32] Package is APPROVED. But fix the docs subpackage RPM group when importing. The latest release is now 3.20120611. It is probably going to be challenging to keep up with Joey but might be nice to update to the latest release if possible after importing the srpm. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 662259] Review Request: git-annex - Manage files with git, without checking their contents in

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662259 --- Comment #35 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- fedora-review output: 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. ==== Generic ==== [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: 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 [ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: 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 [ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [ ]: 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. [ ]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: MUST Package installs properly. [ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint git-annex-3.20120522-1.fc18.src.rpm git-annex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksumming -> check summing, check-summing, checkmating git-annex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versioned -> version ed, version-ed, version git-annex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symlink -> slinky git-annex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symlinks -> slinks git-annex.src: W: strange-permission git-annex-3.20120522.tar.gz 0640L git-annex.src: W: strange-permission git-annex.spec 0640L git-annex.src: W: strange-permission git-annex-no-ifelse.patch 0640L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. rpmlint git-annex-3.20120522-1.fc18.i686.rpm git-annex.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksumming -> check summing, check-summing, checkmating git-annex.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versioned -> version ed, version-ed, version git-annex.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symlink -> slinky git-annex.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symlinks -> slinks 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. rpmlint git-annex-docs-3.20120522-1.fc18.i686.rpm git-annex-docs.i686: W: non-standard-group documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/petersen/pkgreview/git-annex/2/662259/git-annex-3.20120522.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 7807387d240e6343853718097e46ec15 MD5SUM upstream package : 7807387d240e6343853718097e46ec15 [ ]: 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. [ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Patch0: git-annex-no-ifelse.patch (git-annex-no-ifelse.patch) [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. [ ]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. Issues: [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint git-annex-3.20120522-1.fc18.src.rpm git-annex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksumming -> check summing, check-summing, checkmating git-annex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versioned -> version ed, version-ed, version git-annex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symlink -> slinky git-annex.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symlinks -> slinks git-annex.src: W: strange-permission git-annex-3.20120522.tar.gz 0640L git-annex.src: W: strange-permission git-annex.spec 0640L git-annex.src: W: strange-permission git-annex-no-ifelse.patch 0640L 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. rpmlint git-annex-3.20120522-1.fc18.i686.rpm git-annex.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US checksumming -> check summing, check-summing, checkmating git-annex.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US versioned -> version ed, version-ed, version git-annex.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symlink -> slinky git-annex.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US symlinks -> slinks 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. rpmlint git-annex-docs-3.20120522-1.fc18.i686.rpm git-annex-docs.i686: W: non-standard-group documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3 External plugins: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 662259] Review Request: git-annex - Manage files with git, without checking their contents in

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=662259 --- Comment #34 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to comment #33) > git-annex-docs.x86_64: W: non-standard-group documentation Please use "Documentation" not "documentation" to avoid this warning. RPM groups always start with a capital letter. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 818102] Review Request: ghc-network-conduit - Stream socket data using conduits

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818102 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-06-11 20:28:19 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-network-conduit-0.4.0-1.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.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 630228] Review Request: ghc-io-storage - A key-value store in the IO monad

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630228 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |Ready --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Yes, here NotReady usually means the submission had stagnated: ie either needed a refresh to current cabal2spec templates or the version is no longer current say. Sometimes also use it when submitters don't update their packages in response to issues, etc. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel June 2012