November 2009 - haskell-devel - Fedora Mailing-Lists

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800 --- Comment #30 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-11-14 09:49:30 EDT --- (In reply to comment #29) > > I see 1.6.12 is out: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hlint > Though it seems to require haskell-src-exts >=1.3. Ok I went ahead and built ghc-haskell-src-exts-1.3.0 in dist-f13. > However even after it still fails for me mysteriously: > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1806161 Fixed in same build adding missing "Requires: ghc-cpphs-devel". So hopefully hlint-1.6.12 should build there. -- 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.

14 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800 --- Comment #29 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-11-14 07:43:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #28) > I see 1.6.12 is out: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hlint Though it seems to require haskell-src-exts >=1.3. > which failed since you should BR ghc-cpphs-devel not cpphs. However even after it still fails for me mysteriously: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1806161 -- 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.

14 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800 --- Comment #28 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-11-14 07:36:42 EDT --- I see 1.6.12 is out: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/hlint Also I tried a scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1806154 which failed since you should BR ghc-cpphs-devel not cpphs. (Would be nice to update the deps for f11, so that it will build there too.) -- 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.

14 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |petersen(a)redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #27 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-11-14 07:12:35 EDT --- Thanks for the update and continued effort on this package. I think we are getting nearly there. :) (In reply to comment #22) > The intention was GPLv2. The license block in the Cabal says GPL, but > the License file it points at is the GPLv2. Likely Neil (the author) is not familiar with the Fedora's distinction of GPLv2 vs GPLv2+, > but I will try and find what > the Haskell/Cabal approved way is to mark GPL versions in the license > field. AFAIK there isn't one :-( so we should probably complain to cabal/hackage about it, and request adding of GPLvN but getting it fine-grained enough for Fedora will probably be hard I suspect. -- 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.

14 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 517366] Review Request: emacs-haskell-mode - Haskell editing mode for Emacs

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=517366 --- Comment #24 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2009-11-14 06:49:26 EDT --- I think it is better just to move haskell-mode-init.patch into "Source1: haskell-mode-init.el" - doing it as a patch doesn't really make sense. Have you submitted the Makefile patch upstream - it looks pretty sane and non-fedora specific to me. Otherwise I think the package looks pretty reasonable to me. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Emacs#Template_for_a_add-on_pack... -- 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.

14 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 530688] Review Request: ghc-language-c - Haskell language-c library

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530688 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |bos(a)serpentine.com -- 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.

14 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 530688] Review Request: ghc-language-c - Haskell language-c library

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=530688 Bryan O'Sullivan <bos(a)serpentine.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |bos(a)serpentine.com Flag| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Bryan O'Sullivan <bos(a)serpentine.com> 2009-11-13 00:28:45 EDT --- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. $ rpmlint ghc-language-c-devel-0.3.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-language-c-doc-0.3.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint ghc-language-c-prof-0.3.1.1-1.fc11.x86_64.rpm ghc-language-c-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-language-c-devel ghc-language-c-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-language-c-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.10.3/language-c-0.3.1.1/libHSlanguage-c-0.3.1.1_p.a 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. OK. All expected. MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK. MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK. MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. OK. MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK. MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. OK. 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. OK. MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. OK. MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK. MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK. 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. OK. MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. OK. MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. NA. MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. NA. MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. NA. MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable,... NA. MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK. MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK. MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK. MUST: Each package must have a %clean section OK. MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. OK. MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK. MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK. MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. OK. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. NA. MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. NA. MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig' (for directory ownership and usability). NA. MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1) NA. MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} OK. MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. OK. MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must NA. MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK. MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK. MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [27] OK. This package is APPROVED. -- 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.

14 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800 --- Comment #26 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2009-11-09 00:07:02 EDT --- Added. http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/hlint.spec http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/hlint-1.6.11-2.fc11.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.

14 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800 --- Comment #25 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2009-11-08 10:54:27 EDT --- It makes no difference, and the guidelines don't specify. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Clari... Just include the full mail headers. -- 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.

14 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 479800] Review Request: hlint - Provides Haskell Source Code Suggestions

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. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=479800 --- Comment #24 from Conrad Meyer <konrad(a)tylerc.org> 2009-11-07 23:29:30 EDT --- Sure, it can be added to a README.Fedora (or LicensingClarification.txt, whatever you would like). -- 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.

14 years, 5 months

1
0
0 / 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel November 2009