[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 566636] New: ghc is missing the ghc haskell package
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.
Summary: ghc is missing the ghc haskell package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=566636
Summary: ghc is missing the ghc haskell package
Product: Fedora
Version: 13
Platform: i686
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: low
Component: ghc
AssignedTo: bos(a)serpentine.com
ReportedBy: greenrd(a)greenrd.org
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, bos(a)serpentine.com,
loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com,
fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
Description of problem:
The ghc Fedora package doesn't contain the ghc Haskell package, which contains
the GHC API, and therefore packages which rely on it can't be built.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
ghc-6.12.1-5.fc13.i686
How reproducible:
Always
Steps to Reproduce:
ghc-pkg list ghc
Actual results:
/usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/package.conf.d
Expected results:
/usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/package.conf.d
ghc-6.12.1
Additional info:
This problem also seems to exist in the Windows package of GHC 6.12.1:
http://www.mail-archive.com/haskell-cafe@haskell.org/msg69311.html
--
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, 3 months
[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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #47 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-17 05:23:33 EST ---
Thanks Conrad.
Here is my review, before upstream releases again. ;) :)
Here is the review:
+:ok, =:needs attention, -:needs fixing, NA: not applicable
MUST Items:
[=] MUST: rpmlint output
hlint.src: W: macro-in-%description %ghc_binlib_package
I don't like this and only noticed this week with
haskeline in koji but it is a cabal2spec templates
error. I guess we need %{?ghc_binlib_package}.
I suggest making that change before importing.
hlint.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
hlint.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
These are ok: though I maybe revert cabal2spec until rpmlint
is silenced for them.
ghc-hlint.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20-ghc6.12.1.so
ghc-hlint.x86_64: W: executable-stack
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20-ghc6.12.1.so
ghc-hlint-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-hlint-devel
ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation
ghc-hlint-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
/usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/hlint-1.6.20/libHShlint-1.6.20_p.a
hlint.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/hlint
These are normal for a haskell package.
[+] MUST: Package Naming Guidelines
[+] MUST: spec file name must match base package %{name}
[+] MUST: Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Licensing Guidelines
[+] MUST: License field in the package spec file must match actual license.
[+] MUST: include license files in %doc if available in source
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English and be legible.
[+] MUST: source md5sum matches upstream release
6c1be9a1d0835d5aa5028ac1de5dcee3 hlint-1.6.20.tar.gz
[+] MUST: must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on one main arch
[+] MUST: if necessary use ExcludeArch for other archs
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] 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 must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: Large documentation files should go in a doc subpackage.
[+] 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.
[NA] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA] MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g.
libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in
a -devel package.
[+] 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 contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] 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.
Ok I take you dropped "LicenseClarification" since the .cabal file
now states GPLv2.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
I suggest quoting ghc_binlib_package with ? as above.
Package is APPROVED for fedora.
--
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, 3 months