haskell-devel September 2010

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
456 discussions

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 630222] Review Request: ghc-colour - A model for human colour/color perception
by Red Hat Bugzilla 20 Sep '10

20 Sep '10

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=630222 --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-19 20:09:44 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > [!]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet > the Licensing Guidelines . > No explicit short license name is mentioned. Well License .spec is listed as MIT. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List So you just need to check that the package license text follows the text of that license. :) -- 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 615692] Review Request: ghc-gtk - Haskell gtk binding
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 Sep '10

19 Sep '10

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=615692 --- Comment #6 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-19 16:05:15 EDT --- When I used cabal to build gtk, it used glib-0.11.2. Hence I used the following rpms (as glib-0.11.2 was not in any of the f14 repos but available in rawhide). ghc-cairo x86_64 0.11.1-1.fc15 ghc-gio x86_64 0.11.1-2.fc15 ghc-glib x86_64 0.11.2-2.fc15 ghc-pango x86_64 0.11.2-2.fc15 Now the compile error goes away. When I use this command rpmbuild -ba --without hscolour --without shared ghc-gtk.spec I got errors for lot unpackaged files. So I used --without devhelp. rpmbuild -ba --without hscolour --without devhelp --without shared ghc-gtk.spec which left me with one error. Installed (but unpackaged) file(s) found: /usr/share/doc/ghc-gtk-0.11.2/COPYING -- 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 615692] Review Request: ghc-gtk - Haskell gtk binding
by Red Hat Bugzilla 19 Sep '10

19 Sep '10

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=615692 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com --- Comment #5 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-19 15:47:38 EDT --- Unable to build ghc-gtk with rpms from fedora 14 repositories. I used the following command, yum --enablerepo=updates-testing install ghc*gio* ghc*glib* ghc-cairo x86_64 0.11.1-1.fc14 ghc-gio x86_64 0.11.1-2.fc14 ghc-glib x86_64 0.11.1-1.fc14 ghc-pango x86_64 0.11.2-1.fc14 (I have left out the prof and devel libraries from the table here. But they were also installed) Now when I run rpmbuild with this command rpmbuild -ba --without hscolour --without devhelp --without shared ghc-gtk.spec I get this error, [ 5 of 172] Compiling Graphics.UI.Gtk.Signals ( dist/build/Graphics/UI/Gtk/Signals.hs, dist/build/Graphics/UI/Gtk/Signals.o ) Graphics/UI/Gtk/Signals.chs:105:46: Module `System.Glib.UTFString' does not export `maybePeekUTFString' error: Bad exit status from /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.Yb9rcw (%build) I am using Fedora 14 Alpha release on x86_64. -- 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 595697] Review Request: ghc-regex-tdfa - Haskell "tagged" DFA regex engine
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Sep '10

17 Sep '10

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=595697 --- Comment #9 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-17 16:40:59 EDT --- Spec file https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/ghc-regex-tdfa.spec?att… Source rpm https://sites.google.com/site/lakshminaras2002/home/ghc-regex-tdfa-1.1.4-1.… There has been a version update from 1.1.3 to 1.1.4 Rpmlint output ghc-regex-tdfa.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtre -> libre, Liberec, librate The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtre -> libre, Liberec, librate The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/regex-tdfa-1.1.4/libHSregex-tdfa-1.1.4-ghc6.12.1.so The binary declares the stack as executable. Executable stack is usually an error as it is only needed if the code contains GCC trampolines or similar constructs which uses code on the stack. One common source for needlessly executable stack cases are object files built from assembler files which don't define a proper .note.GNU-stack section. ghc-regex-tdfa-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtre -> libre, Liberec, librate The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-regex-tdfa-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-regex-tdfa-prof.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US libtre -> libre, Liberec, librate The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-regex-tdfa-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-regex-tdfa-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/regex-tdfa-1.1.4/libHSregex-tdfa-1.1.4_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 10 warnings. -- 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 630272] Review Request: ghc-tagsoup - Parsing HTML/XML documents library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Sep '10

17 Sep '10

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=630272 --- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-17 12:36:02 EDT --- I see a line # tagsoup.htm. Can this comment be removed? Must items + OK , ! - Not sure , NA - Not Applicable [+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. ghc-tagsoup.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-tagsoup.src: W: strange-permission tagsoup-0.10.1.tar.gz 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. ghc-tagsoup.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Haskell -> Gaskell, Gaitskell, Skellum The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-tagsoup.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/tagsoup-0.10.1/libHStagsoup-0.10.1-ghc6.12.1.so ghc-tagsoup-prof.x86_64: E: devel-dependency ghc-tagsoup-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-tagsoup-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-tagsoup-prof.x86_64: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib64/ghc-6.12.1/tagsoup-0.10.1/libHStagsoup-0.10.1_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. [+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . Naming-Yes Version-release - Matches License - OK No prebuilt external bits - OK Spec legibity - OK Package template - OK Arch support - OK Libexecdir - OK rpmlint - yes changelogs - OK Source url tag - OK, validated. Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK %clean is ignored - present anyway. OK Build Requires list - OK Summary and description - OK API documentation - OK [+]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. [+]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. [+]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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. [~ ghc-tagsoup]$ md5sum tagsoup-0.10.1.tar.gz a0a15e88465282de5263ea3d19b68290 tagsoup-0.10.1.tar.gz [~ ghc-tagsoup-0.10.1-1.fc14.src]$ md5sum tagsoup-0.10.1.tar.gz a0a15e88465282de5263ea3d19b68290 tagsoup-0.10.1.tar.gz [+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary 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. [NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro [NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. [+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+]MUST: Large documentation files must 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: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release} [NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section [+]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: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains 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. [+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. cabal2spec-diff says %{?ghc_binlib_package} instead of %{?ghc_lib_package}. >From Jens' comment in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?format=multiple&id=558058, I guess this is OK. cabal2spec-diff is OK. 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 576482] Review Request: ghc-deepseq - Haskell library to fully evaluate data structures
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Sep '10

17 Sep '10

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=576482 --- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)tummy.com> 2010-09-17 12:08:41 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 630272] Review Request: ghc-tagsoup - Parsing HTML/XML documents library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Sep '10

17 Sep '10

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=630272 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-17 09:55:46 EDT --- There is an updated package version available v0.11 -- 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 630222] Review Request: ghc-colour - A model for human colour/color perception
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Sep '10

17 Sep '10

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=630222 Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-17 07:41:16 EDT --- Hi Ben, Here is my review on this package. I used the guidelines from https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines . I saw that Jens' review on another package had some additional items. I used that. Must items + OK , ! - Not sure , NA - Not Applicable [+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. ghc-colour.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-colour.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co lours, Co-lours, Col ours The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-colour.i386: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.3.1-1 ['2.3.1-1.f13', '2.3.1-1.f13'] The last entry in %changelog contains a version identifier that is not coherent with the epoch:version-release tuple of the package. ghc-colour.i386: W: executable-stack /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/colour-2.3.1/libHScolour-2.3.1-ghc6.12.1.so The binary declares the stack as executable. Executable stack is usually an error as it is only needed if the code contains GCC trampolines or similar constructs which uses code on the stack. One common source for needlessly executable stack cases are object files built from assembler files which don't define a proper .note.GNU-stack section. ghc-colour.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-colour.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co lours, Co-lours, Col ours The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-colour.src: W: strange-permission colour-2.3.1.tar.gz 0640L A file that you listed to include in your package has strange permissions. Usually, a file should have 0644 permissions. ghc-colour-devel.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-colour-devel.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co lours, Co-lours, Col ours The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-colour-prof.i386: E: devel-dependency ghc-colour-devel Your package has a dependency on a devel package but it's not a devel package itself. ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US colours -> colors, co lours, co-lours The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Colours -> Co lours, Co-lours, Col ours The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check. ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: no-documentation The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include documentation files. ghc-colour-prof.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/colour-2.3.1/libHScolour-2.3.1_p.a A development file (usually source code) is located in a non-devel package. If you want to include source code in your package, be sure to create a development package. 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 13 warnings. [+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . [+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec [+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . Naming-Yes Version-release - Matches License-Not sure, nothing mentioned in the LICENSE file. No prebuilt external bits - Yes Spec legibity - OK Package template - OK Arch support - No exclude arch Libexecdir - OK rpmlint - yes changelogs - OK Source url tag - OK, validated. Buildroot is ignored - present anyway. OK Build Requires list - OK Summary and description - OK [!]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . No explicit short license name is mentioned. [!]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. Depends on previous item [+]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. echo "%{_datadir}/%{pkg_name}-%{version}/CHANGELOG" >> %{name}.files echo "%{_datadir}/%{pkg_name}-%{version}/README" >> %{name}.files For consistency, shouldn't the directories in {_datadir} be in the same name as the package name %{name}? [+]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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. [~]$ md5sum colour-2.3.1.tar.gz 5edced36d4c27393ae1ce1389eeb25ad colour-2.3.1.tar.gz [~]$ md5sum ~/Downloads/colour-2.3.1.tar.gz 5edced36d4c27393ae1ce1389eeb25ad ~/Downloads/colour-2.3.1.tar.gz [+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary 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. [NA]MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly using the %find_lang macro [NA]MUST: Packages stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review. [+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. [+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. [+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. [+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [+]MUST: Large documentation files must 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: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release} [NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section [+]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: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains 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. [NA]SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. [+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. cabal2spec-diff is OK. -- 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 629145] Review Request: ghc-cmdargs - Haskell command argument parsing
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Sep '10

17 Sep '10

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=629145 --- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-17 06:33:17 EDT --- 0.5 was released btw. -- 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 631742] New: ghc-haskeline-0.6.2.4 is available
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Sep '10

17 Sep '10

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: ghc-haskeline-0.6.2.4 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=631742 Summary: ghc-haskeline-0.6.2.4 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: ASSIGNED Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Severity: medium Priority: low Component: ghc-haskeline AssignedTo: petersen(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 0.6.2.4 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 0.6.2.3 URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/haskeline/ Please consult the package update guidelines before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_guidelines More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_Release_Monitoring -- 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 2

← Newer
1
...
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
...
46
Older →

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel September 2010