haskell-devel January 2009

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

5 participants
71 discussions

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.
by Red Hat Bugzilla 18 Jan '09

18 Jan '09

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=426751 --- Comment #42 from Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com> 2009-01-18 16:17:30 EDT --- Ok, finally, and i should be alot more on top of this in the far reaching future (i think), i have some packages. SPEC:http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-X11.spec SRPM:http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-X11-1.4.5-1.fc11.src.rpm This is more or less pretty much based on the latest template. It's being managed by fedora-devshell, which means getting hotfixes done should be fast. Note: AFAIK, we don't have the macros needed in F10 right now, so this only builds in rawhide. The SRPM is output from mock using rawhide. Once the macros are in F10, supporting it there should be trivial. I submit this 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 426753] Review Request: xmonad - A tiling window manager
by Red Hat Bugzilla 15 Jan '09

15 Jan '09

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=426753 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|petersen(a)redhat.com |nobody(a)fedoraproject.org -- 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 479793] Review Request: cpphs - A liberalised re-implementation of cpp, the C pre-processor
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

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=479793 --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-01-14 04:38:14 EDT --- I updated the templates in the draft haskell-packaging package to handle doc subpackages btw (haven't tested it though yet:). You could try http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging-0.3-1.… (though the cabal2spec will conflict with the one in ghc currently). -- 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 479803] Review Request: haskell-packaging - RPM macros and spec templates for Haskell
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

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=479803 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-01-14 04:34:14 EDT --- Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging.spec SRPM URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/haskell-packaging/haskell-packaging-0.3-1.… (In reply to comment #1) > 1) why URL still drafts url? > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell Added a comment > 2) just a suggestion. How about using package name as haskell-packager? Still thinking on this - added a comment in spec - I need to look at some other packages for examples. > 3) Can it be possible to have all those Source files be tarred and released > with license file on fedorapeople currently till you get fedorahosted page? Done (but untested:) > 4) spec templates can be installed in /etc/rpmdevtools location instead to go > for some %{_datadir}/%{name} location. Done -- 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 479793] Review Request: cpphs - A liberalised re-implementation of cpp, the C pre-processor
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

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=479793 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-01-14 03:10:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Done. (Or I guess, your patch does this.) Although rpmbuild complains as I told > you on IRC. Strange - builds ok for me on f10 (and f11 mock) anyway. > > Hmm, /usr/share/doc/ghc/libraries is owned by ghc-doc but not required by > > ghc-cpphs - looks like a oversight of the guidelines. > > > > Wondering whether we should subpackage haddock docs for this or do something > > else. > > Well, at any rate ghc-cpphs must depend on ghc-doc (or ghc-doc if we create a > subpackage for the docs). Right. Since ghc-doc is quite big I am leaning towards subpackaging for all libraries' docs generated by haddock. I guess in this case ghc-cpphs-doc say. Any other thoughts from the 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

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 479793] Review Request: cpphs - A liberalised re-implementation of cpp, the C pre-processor
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

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=479793 --- Comment #5 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2009-01-14 02:29:12 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > ... > I think better to move it to ghc-cpphs where it actually applies Done. (Or I guess, your patch does this.) Although rpmbuild complains as I told you on IRC. > ... > [=] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. > > Hmm, /usr/share/doc/ghc/libraries is owned by ghc-doc but not required by > ghc-cpphs - looks like a oversight of the guidelines. > > Wondering whether we should subpackage haddock docs for this or do something > else. Well, at any rate ghc-cpphs must depend on ghc-doc (or ghc-doc if we create a subpackage for the docs). > ... > I sent a message to the maintainer asking for the GPL license file to be added > in the future. Thanks. -- 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 479793] Review Request: cpphs - A liberalised re-implementation of cpp, the C pre-processor
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

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=479793 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-01-14 02:22:41 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=328957) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=328957) cpphs.spec-2.patch - simplify summaries - move lgpl license file to ghc-cpphs - add html doc and some trivial cleanup. -- 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 479793] Review Request: cpphs - A liberalised re-implementation of cpp, the C pre-processor
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 479793] Review Request: cpphs - A liberalised re-implementation of cpp, the C pre-processor
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

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=479793 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |petersen(a)redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |petersen(a)redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-01-14 02:16:26 EDT --- Thanks for the update. For fun I tries to push it through http://gauret.free.fr/fichiers/rpms/fedora/fedora-qa (though that is a little old now apparently). Here is my review: +:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing MUST Items: [+] MUST: [rpmlint] packages are clean [+] MUST: base name is ok and matches spec [+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. GPL+ and LGPLv2+ [+] 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 must be included in %doc. I think better to move it to ghc-cpphs where it actually applies [+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 8a7565ff3b2d7bdb594af4c10c594951 cpphs-1.6.tar.gz [+] MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture. [+] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. [+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [=] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. Hmm, /usr/share/doc/ghc/libraries is owned by ghc-doc but not required by ghc-cpphs - looks like a oversight of the guidelines. Wondering whether we should subpackage haddock docs for this or do something else. [+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. [+] MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros section of Packaging Guidelines. [+] MUST: The package contains code [+] MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. [+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. ghc-cpphs provides -devel for now [+] MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. [+] MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). [+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. SHOULD Items: [+] 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. I sent a message to the maintainer asking for the GPL license file to be added in the future. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. Once the above file ownership issue is resolved I think I can approve this, but I will attach a small patch. -- 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 479803] Review Request: haskell-packaging - RPM macros and spec templates for Haskell
by Red Hat Bugzilla 14 Jan '09

14 Jan '09

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=479803 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-01-13 19:26:20 EDT --- Good questions: > 1) why URL still drafts url? > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell Yeah it is kind of a chicken'n'egg kind of situation. Actually I didn't follow the whole process of fontpackages wrt FPC (Fedora Packaging Committee) and the recent revision of the Fonts Packaging Guidelines: the files in the package are really part of the new Haskell Packaging Draft so it would probably make sense for them to be looked at by FPC as part of the Haskell Packaging Guidelines revision process. > 2) just a suggestion. How about using package name as haskell-packager? Hmm maybe the rpm macros and the templates should be separated then. There are more rpm bits (scripts) coming for dependency generation. I could move the spec templating part to haskell-packager: in the longer term we would probably like to rewrite/replace it with something in Haskell (like cabal2rpm). > 3) Can it be possible to have all those Source files be tarred and released > with license file on fedorapeople currently till you get fedorahosted page? Yeah, before doing that I just wanted to put it out for discussion first. :) Currently it is really small though and I doubt any other non-derived distro would be interested in the templates anyway so I was half-naively thinking that it could even just live in pkg cvs but that would probably be frowned upon these days? > 4) spec templates can be installed in /etc/rpmdevtools location instead to go > for some %{_datadir}/%{name} location. Good point: I will change that. Thanks. -- 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

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel January 2009