June 2012 - haskell-devel - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Bug 656892] Review Request: ghc-augeas - Haskell bindings for the augeas library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=656892 --- Comment #17 from JudeNagurney <jude(a)pwan.org> --- It looks like I had some configuration management and darcs tagging issues that I've hopefully resolved now. I ran rpmlint on the srpm and I'm just getting the spelling-error warnings in the URL now. There is a new spec file and source RPM available. Spec URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas.spec SRPM URL: http://code.haskell.org/augeas/packaging/rpm/ghc-augeas-0.6.1-2.fc16.src.rpm -- 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 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|notready | --- Comment #5 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> --- Presumably we should clear it when reviewing, and it's just to spare people from being nagged unnecessarily by people asking when the review will be done - so I'll just clear it. Same as 630221 - the source MD5 checksum does not match upstream; please update and I'll then approve it. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== 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. [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. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [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 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. [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. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/michel/sources/fedora/projects/FedoraReview/src/630228/io-storage-0.3.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : f0d3a8331ee996f46533ee764ace88ae MD5SUM upstream package : e036030c454cb57b3658615e36bfb32d [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). [?]: 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. [?]: 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 Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/michel/sources/fedora/projects/FedoraReview/src/630228/io-storage-0.3.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : f0d3a8331ee996f46533ee764ace88ae MD5SUM upstream package : e036030c454cb57b3658615e36bfb32d See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 630221] Review Request: ghc-vty - A simple terminal access library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630221 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|notready | --- Comment #9 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> --- MD5 checksum does not match the upstream download, and 4.7.0.14 is now out -- everything else looks fine, so please update the spec and SRPM and I'll then approve it. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== 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. [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. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [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 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. [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. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. xt [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. [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/michel/sources/fedora/projects/FedoraReview/src/630221/vty-4.7.0.10.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 171ece14078363412467967bfac9881c MD5SUM upstream package : d6fde5f1318951bc2724a1a45f9070dd [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). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. 4.7.0.14 is out [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. [?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: 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 Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/michel/sources/fedora/projects/FedoraReview/src/630221/vty-4.7.0.10.tar.gz : MD5SUM this package : 171ece14078363412467967bfac9881c MD5SUM upstream package : d6fde5f1318951bc2724a1a45f9070dd See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. 4.7.0.14 is out Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0git External plugins: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 630258] Review Request: ghc-data-object - Represent hierarchical structures

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630258 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> --- Taking this review (please clear the notready flag if this is in fact ready) -- 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 --- Comment #4 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> --- I forget what Jens uses as the prereq for setting the notready flag. I think it's related to deps that have cropped up since the review was filed. It may be a priority marker as well. I'll ask once he shows up on IRC. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 630221] Review Request: ghc-vty - A simple terminal access library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630221 --- Comment #8 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> --- (In reply to comment #7) > (In reply to comment #5) > > ghc-vty.src: W: strange-permission ghc-vty.spec 0640L > > ghc-vty.src: W: strange-permission vty-4.7.0.10.tar.gz 0640L > > Probably best to 'chmod 644' the files before doing rpmbuild -- that's quite > a secure home directory. Wait until the full review before changing this > though, no point regenerating the SRPM just for permission warnings. They'll be fine when generated via fedora-git (the tarball uploads are fine too once on the server which has been verified by infrastructure). It's only local stuff I build which has this issue. -- 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 --- Comment #3 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> --- Is the 'notready' flag in the whiteboard still accurate? Presumably this is ready for review now -- 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 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> --- Taking this review -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 630221] Review Request: ghc-vty - A simple terminal access library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630221 --- Comment #7 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> --- (In reply to comment #5) > ghc-vty.src: W: strange-permission ghc-vty.spec 0640L > ghc-vty.src: W: strange-permission vty-4.7.0.10.tar.gz 0640L Probably best to 'chmod 644' the files before doing rpmbuild -- that's quite a secure home directory. Wait until the full review before changing this though, no point regenerating the SRPM just for permission warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

12 years

1
0
0 / 0

[Bug 630221] Review Request: ghc-vty - A simple terminal access library

by Red Hat Bugzilla

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630221 Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Michel Alexandre Salim <michel+fdr(a)sylvestre.me> --- Taking this review -- 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