haskell-devel February 2014

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

2 participants
416 discussions

[Bug 839260] Review Request: Agda-stdlib - Agda standard library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839260 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Cui6qfntW3&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 986641] Review Request: ghc-shakespeare-js - Compile-time variable interpolation for Javascript
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986641 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(petersen(a)redhat.c | |om) | --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Sébastien Willmann from comment #3) > alson -> also > Remove the space before the final dot. > Add a dot at the end of the second paragraph. Okay sure thanks - I will fix those. See https://github.com/yesodweb/shakespeare/pull/123 > The package seems to contain tests, maybe you can add a check section? Right, but we don't have hspec packaged in Fedora yet. In fact we have been kind of "systematically" ignoring test-frameworks so it is probably about time we started to package some of them, but I don't think it needs to block this review. :) (I am also planning to update to latest version but that could be done after - it needs an update of shakespeare anyway.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=LNE9sCHrio&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 839260] Review Request: Agda-stdlib - Agda standard library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839260 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |POST Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thanks for reviewing the package. Strictly this is not a Haskell package but let me keep it under the SIG for now. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: Agda-stdlib Short Description: Agda standard library Owners: petersen Branches: f20 f19 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XDLneba2JD&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1054565] Review Request: ghc-securemem - Auto-scrubbing bytestring memory chunks
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Feb '14

10 Feb '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054565 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thank you for the review. :) New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-securemem Short Description: Auto-scrubbing bytestring memory chunks Owners: petersen Branches: f20 f19 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ngV27N5Dzn&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1054565] Review Request: ghc-securemem - Auto-scrubbing bytestring memory chunks
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Feb '14

09 Feb '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054565 Sébastien Willmann <sebastien.willmann(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Sébastien Willmann <sebastien.willmann(a)gmail.com> --- Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/WilQu/fedpkg/reviews/1054565-ghc- securemem/licensecheck.txt Note: license is not specified in the source files. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: 0 specfiles, no ExcludeArch: found [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 18 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. Can load module and use functions in ghci [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. No test available [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-securemem-0.1.3-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm ghc-securemem-devel-0.1.3-2.fc21.x86_64.rpm ghc-securemem-0.1.3-2.fc21.src.rpm ghc-securemem.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bytestring -> byte string, byte-string, restringing ghc-securemem.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bytestring -> byte string, byte-string, restringing 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ghc-securemem ghc-securemem-devel ghc-securemem.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bytestring -> byte string, byte-string, restringing 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ghc-securemem (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc(byteable-0.1.1-d4755477dc4e2aac49eac498fa9d9b71) ghc(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc(ghc-prim-0.3.0.0-d5221a8c8a269b66ab9a07bdc23317dd) libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbyteable-0.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.10.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-securemem-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(securemem-0.1.3-59fd79009633436a4d186c0837fe63a0) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc-devel(byteable-0.1.1-d4755477dc4e2aac49eac498fa9d9b71) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc-devel(ghc-prim-0.3.0.0-d5221a8c8a269b66ab9a07bdc23317dd) ghc-securemem(x86-64) Provides -------- ghc-securemem: ghc(securemem-0.1.3-59fd79009633436a4d186c0837fe63a0) ghc-securemem ghc-securemem(x86-64) libHSsecuremem-0.1.3-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) ghc-securemem-devel: ghc-devel(securemem-0.1.3-59fd79009633436a4d186c0837fe63a0) ghc-securemem-devel ghc-securemem-devel(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-securemem: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/securemem-0.1.3/libHSsecuremem-0.1.3-ghc7.6.3.so Source checksums ---------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/securemem/0.1.3/securemem-0.1.3… : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 12a42caa7b09076197f14eb8511ec98969becdd81596617fe71cc13dcebccccf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 12a42caa7b09076197f14eb8511ec98969becdd81596617fe71cc13dcebccccf Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1054565 -DEXARCH Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Haskell, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=FahoxviPeS&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 1054565] Review Request: ghc-securemem - Auto-scrubbing bytestring memory chunks
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Feb '14

09 Feb '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054565 Sébastien Willmann <sebastien.willmann(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sebastien.willmann(a)gmail.co | |m Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |sebastien.willmann(a)gmail.co | |m Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=INMVtBaAZV&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 986641] Review Request: ghc-shakespeare-js - Compile-time variable interpolation for Javascript
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Feb '14

09 Feb '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986641 Sébastien Willmann <sebastien.willmann(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |petersen(a)redhat.com Flags| |needinfo?(petersen(a)redhat.c | |om) --- Comment #3 from Sébastien Willmann <sebastien.willmann(a)gmail.com> --- A few things to fix in the description: alson -> also Remove the space before the final dot. Add a dot at the end of the second paragraph. The package seems to contain tests, maybe you can add a check section? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/WilQu/fedpkg/reviews/986641-ghc-shakespeare- js/licensecheck.txt Note: license not specified in source files. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. Remove the space before the final dot. Add a dot at the end of the second paragraph. alson -> also [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Package uses ExclusiveArch: %{ghc_arches_with_ghci} [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 215040 bytes in 26 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. I can load the lib from ghci [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-shakespeare-js-1.1.4-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ghc-shakespeare-js-devel-1.1.4-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm ghc-shakespeare-js-1.1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm ghc-shakespeare-js.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quoter -> quote, quotes, quoted ghc-shakespeare-js.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript ghc-shakespeare-js.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alson -> also, salon, arson ghc-shakespeare-js.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quoter -> quote, quotes, quoted ghc-shakespeare-js.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript ghc-shakespeare-js.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alson -> also, salon, arson 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ghc-shakespeare-js ghc-shakespeare-js-devel ghc-shakespeare-js.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US quoter -> quote, quotes, quoted ghc-shakespeare-js.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javascript -> java script, java-script, JavaScript ghc-shakespeare-js.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US alson -> also, salon, arson 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ghc-shakespeare-js (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(aeson-0.6.2.1-92173c75149e34c3bea9cafc379c1c76) ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc(shakespeare-1.0.5.1-8d63350e724555cd77ded8dab625124c) ghc(template-haskell-2.8.0.0-a3012803fde1dc362e555b35a1a78e6d) ghc(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607) libHSaeson-0.6.2.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSattoparsec-0.10.4.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSblaze-builder-0.3.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.10.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdirectory-1.2.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdlist-0.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSfilepath-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHShashable-1.1.2.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSmtl-2.1.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSold-locale-1.0.0.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSparsec-3.1.3-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSpretty-1.1.1.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSprimitive-0.5.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSprocess-1.1.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSshakespeare-1.0.5.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSsyb-0.4.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSsystem-fileio-0.3.11-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSsystem-filepath-0.4.7-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStemplate-haskell-2.8.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStext-0.11.3.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSunix-2.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSunordered-containers-0.2.3.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSvector-0.10.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-shakespeare-js-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(shakespeare-js-1.1.4-d4a1fdcb65d61452688619d0d2102f3f) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(aeson-0.6.2.1-92173c75149e34c3bea9cafc379c1c76) ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc-devel(shakespeare-1.0.5.1-8d63350e724555cd77ded8dab625124c) ghc-devel(template-haskell-2.8.0.0-a3012803fde1dc362e555b35a1a78e6d) ghc-devel(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607) ghc-shakespeare-js(x86-64) Provides -------- ghc-shakespeare-js: ghc(shakespeare-js-1.1.4-d4a1fdcb65d61452688619d0d2102f3f) ghc-shakespeare-js ghc-shakespeare-js(x86-64) libHSshakespeare-js-1.1.4-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) ghc-shakespeare-js-devel: ghc-devel(shakespeare-js-1.1.4-d4a1fdcb65d61452688619d0d2102f3f) ghc-shakespeare-js-devel ghc-shakespeare-js-devel(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-shakespeare-js: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/shakespeare-js-1.1.4/libHSshakespeare-js-1.1.4-ghc7.6.3.so Source checksums ---------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/shakespeare-js/1.1.4/shakespear… : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c3bba5e4ebb914eded23a060beb68f6e76d134aa2a42c8f654c6b118dec51616 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c3bba5e4ebb914eded23a060beb68f6e76d134aa2a42c8f654c6b118dec51616 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 986641 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Haskell, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=dT2jTZiBea&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 986641] Review Request: ghc-shakespeare-js - Compile-time variable interpolation for Javascript
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Feb '14

09 Feb '14

1 0

[Bug 630303] Review Request: yesod - Creation of type-safe, RESTful web applications
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Feb '14

08 Feb '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630303 Sébastien Willmann <sebastien.willmann(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sebastien.willmann(a)gmail.co | |m -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=XLYkKMVudf&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 839260] Review Request: Agda-stdlib - Agda standard library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 06 Feb '14

06 Feb '14

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=839260 Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Shakthi Kannan <shakthimaan(a)gmail.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in 839260-Agda-stdlib/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in Agda- stdlib-docs [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define cabal_configure_options --user [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. ===== EXTRA items ===== [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: Agda-stdlib-0.7-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm Agda-stdlib-docs-0.7-1.fc21.noarch.rpm Agda-stdlib-0.7-1.fc21.src.rpm Agda-stdlib.x86_64: E: no-binary Agda-stdlib-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdlibs -> glibbest 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint Agda-stdlib Agda-stdlib-docs Agda-stdlib.x86_64: E: no-binary Agda-stdlib-docs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US stdlibs -> glibbest 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- Agda-stdlib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Agda-stdlib-docs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- Agda-stdlib: Agda-stdlib Agda-stdlib(x86-64) Agda-stdlib-docs: Agda-stdlib-docs Source checksums ---------------- http://www.cse.chalmers.se/~nad/software/lib-0.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 631a33e8e27ead32c85cc92a0a85849744d3b2960ef9675736d54288267ed2fa CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 631a33e8e27ead32c85cc92a0a85849744d3b2960ef9675736d54288267ed2fa Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 839260 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Package APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bVg67PNk7Z&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel February 2014