[Fedora-haskell-list] Library Packages, how should we handle devel files?
by Yaakov Nemoy
Hi List,
I'm going over the packaging stuff, and I have another blocker
question. rpmlint is giving me errors involving devel files being
included in non devel packages. Do we need devel and non devel
packages, or does it make more sense that people who need a package
also need a devel package?
-Yaakov
15 years, 5 months
Various packages (WAS: [Fedora-haskell-list] Mass closure of submissions?)
by Miles Sabin
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:52 AM, Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Miles Sabin さんは書きました:
> > I have about half a dozen packages which I really ought to get underway
> > (GOA, lambdabot and their dependencies).
>
> Cool: so how about starting with one of those first then?
OK, I have the following,
ghc682-agda-2.1.3-0.20080311.fc8
ghc682-arrows-0.4-1.fc8
ghc682-binary-0.4.1-1.fc8
ghc682-goa-3.0-1.fc8
ghc682-http-3001.0.4-1.fc8
ghc682-oeis-0.1-1.fc8
ghc682-plugins-1.1-0.20080311.fc8
ghc682-quickcheck-2.0-1.fc8
ghc682-stream-0.2.3-1.fc8
ghc682-zlib-0.4.0.4-1.fc8
zlib seems like being the obvious starting point.
So, the administration. I've looked at the instructions here,
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Join
I've already created myself a Fedora project account, but I haven't
yet completed a CLA or found a sponsor. It looks as tho' my next steps
are to put the package up on some webspace somewhere and create a
review request in bugzilla.
Before I do that I'd like to make sure that what I've done matches the
current Haskell packaging guidelines. The most recent of those that
I've been able to find are here,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell
Are these current? And how closely does the most recent cabal-rpm
conform to them (I have 0.3.3)?
I think it would also make sense for me to join the Fedora Haskell SIG
... Am I right that I just add my name at the bottom of the page here,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Haskell
Cheers,
Miles
15 years, 5 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] ghc status update
by Bryan O'Sullivan
Various things are broken as a result of the upgrade to 6.8.3 in
rawhide. I haven't backported 6.8.3 to F-9 yet, so it's not affected.
The problems I know of all have Bugzilla reports.
ghc-doc is missing Haddock docs.
haddock 2.0 doesn't work with 6.8.3, and can't be rebuild against it.
gtk2hs doesn't rebuild against 6.8.3.
I'm going to try to sort out the ghc-doc problem today. Tomorrow I go
on vacation until the 13th, so I won't be fixing anything then :-)
15 years, 5 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 452066] New: Package update request: darcs 2
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452066
Summary: Package update request: darcs 2
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Platform: All
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Component: darcs
AssignedTo: jeremy(a)hinegardner.org
ReportedBy: bos(a)serpentine.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: fedora-haskell-list@redhat.com,petersen(a)redhat.com
Darcs 2 has been available for several months, and is the supported stable
version now. We should upgrade it.
--
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, or are watching someone who is.
15 years, 5 months