haskell-devel November 2008

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

5 participants
66 discussions

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc
by Red Hat Bugzilla 26 Nov '08

26 Nov '08

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=425882 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #46 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-11-26 01:56:58 EDT --- For completeness here is the final package: Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-zlib.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-zlib-0.5.0.0-2.fc10.src.rpm New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-zlib Short Description: Haskell compression and decompression library Owners: petersen bos Branches: F-10 F-9 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- 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

Re: [Fedora-haskell-list] Packaging guidelines and macros update
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 26 Nov '08

26 Nov '08

----- "Bryan O'Sullivan" <bos(a)serpentine.com> wrote: > I've got an outline of the new documentation process here: : > I also did a drive-by update of some other parts of that page, but > it's somewhat out of date compared to the hacking that Jens and I > have been doing lately. Thanks Bryan. I finally got round to editing and revising the guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell and I am finally reasonably happy with them. Perhaps we can leave them a week or two for the rest of the SIG to hopefully scrutinise them and then submit the revision to FPC for review and approval of the revision. Now that ghc-zlib has been approved it should hopefully be easier this time. As you probably noticed by now I have moved the .spec templates directly into the ghc package and provided a primitive shell script called cabal2spec to generate .spec files out of Cabal hackages: when there are no dependencies they should build basically without change and be compliant with the guidelines: so that makes it trivial now to create new cabal rpm packages. Obviously in the long run we should rewrite the script in Haskell (I was being lazy and have written more shell script recently than Haskell :-(), or use cabal-rpm if it can be made compliant to the guidelines for Fedora (I sent submitted a first patch for that long along now while we were discussing the original guidelines...). ghc-6.10.1-5.fc11 is the latest build, has the script and templates and works fine on F10 (and F9 I expect). Once we sort out gtk2hs-docs for F10 we could update F10 to 6.10.1 I think. We can also backport the templates and script to ghc-6.8.3 if it is worth doing. Jens

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

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=425882 --- Comment #45 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-11-25 01:27:25 EDT --- (In reply to comment #44) > Honestly I would suggest that any templates or automated tools not have %files lists with > duplicated files so that less experienced packagers don't get the impression > that it is necessary to duplicate the license file or acceptable in general to > have duplicate entries in %files lists. Right - I will remove it. > I believe that with the patch in comment 42, this package is fine, and I'm > happy to see this through. Thanks for reviewing the first new haskell library package. :-) > I guess we need another guideline update to handle the changed scriptlets, though. Yep. Planning to rework the text, then rfc, and submit to FPC again for review. :) -- 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 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

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=425882 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #44 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2008-11-24 23:37:01 EDT --- The opinion from the legal folks is that even if a srpm creates subpackages that are not related in name or dependency chain, it is still only necessary to include the license file in one of them. It's been discussed, however, and it's also not a blocker if that's really what you want to do. Honestly I would suggest that any templates or automated tools not have %files lists with duplicated files so that less experienced packagers don't get the impression that it is necessary to duplicate the license file or acceptable in general to have duplicate entries in %files lists. I believe that with the patch in comment 42, this package is fine, and I'm happy to see this through. APPROVED I guess we need another guideline update to handle the changed scriptlets, though. -- 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 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

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=425882 --- Comment #43 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-11-24 22:41:34 EDT --- Built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=949251 with ghc-6.10.1-4.fc11. -- 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 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

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=425882 --- Comment #41 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-11-24 22:20:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #20) > There's no reason to include the LICENSE file twice, is there? Yes, probably not, but I think actually the -prof subpackage should not require the main package (just ghc-prof), so it would be possible to install -prof alone. Does that change anything? I am adding a little shell script called cabal2spec in ghc-6.10.1-5.fc11 which generates a ghc library spec files for a hackage tarball argument from cabal-lib-template.spec. It could also generate ghc-zlib.spec with build_doc and build_prof switches. See http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/devel/ghc/ -- 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 470756] Review Request: ghc-HTTP - Haskell HTTP client library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 25 Nov '08

25 Nov '08

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=470756 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-11-24 21:03:05 EDT --- Few minor tweaks to bring package in line with latest updated draft revised guidelines. The package is now equivalent to generating with the cabal2spec script being adding in ghc-6.10.1-5.fc11. Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-HTTP/ghc-HTTP.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-HTTP/ghc-HTTP-3001.1.4-3.fc10.src.rpm -- 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] guidelines install scripts
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen 24 Nov '08

24 Nov '08

Hi, So I have been thinking a bit more about the install scripts in the guidelines, since there seems to me to be no good reason to run ghc-pkg and gen_contents_index more than once per rpm transaction. (Perhaps we should even recommend subpackaging ghc packages.) But I thought I would just ask here once before committing and building the change below to make sure I am not missing something: --- ghc-rpm-macros.ghc 23 Oct 2008 08:31:20 -0000 1.8 +++ ghc-rpm-macros.ghc 24 Nov 2008 07:30:44 -0000 @@ -40,7 +40,6 @@ %{nil} %ghc_preinst_script \ -[ "$1" = 2 ] && %{pkg_libdir}/unregister.sh >&/dev/null || : \ %{nil} %ghc_postinst_script \ @@ -48,11 +47,10 @@ %{nil} %ghc_preun_script \ -%{pkg_libdir}/unregister.sh >&/dev/null \ +[ "$1" = 0 ] && %{pkg_libdir}/unregister.sh >&/dev/null \ %{nil} %ghc_postun_script \ -[ "$1" = 1 ] && %{pkg_libdir}/register.sh >& /dev/null || : \ %{nil} %ghc_reindex_haddock \ Summarizing: %ghc_preinst_script and %ghc_postun_script should not been needed since ghc_postinst_script runs "ghc-pkg update". And %ghc_reindex_haddock only needs to be run in %post not %postun. Jens ps We probably also need to think a bit of how to handle indexing with different haddock versions: gtk2hs.darcs requires haddock-2.4 to build docs, so we can't index with it unless we rebuild ghc with haddock-2.4 - we could just skip %ghc_reindex_haddock for gtk2hs for now though, but probably need to ressurrect haddock in rawhide for gtk2hs docs.

2 1

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 469484] Upgrade path: ghc EVR higher in F8 than F9
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 Nov '08

19 Nov '08

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=469484 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE -- 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

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel November 2008