haskell-devel September 2010

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
456 discussions

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 620046] Review Request: ghc-terminfo - Haskell terminfo binding
by Red Hat Bugzilla 21 Sep '10

21 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=620046 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-21 22:30:56 EDT --- Thanks for reviewing. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-terminfo Short Description: Haskell terminfo binding Owners: petersen Branches: f12 f13 f14 InitialCC: 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 630272] Review Request: ghc-tagsoup - Parsing HTML/XML documents library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 21 Sep '10

21 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 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review?, fedora-cvs? | --- Comment #4 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-21 22:30:23 EDT --- Oops, my fault. Lakshmi isn't sponsored yet. Flipping flags back to the state they should be in. Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-tagsoup/ghc-tagsoup.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/ghc-tagsoup/ghc-tagsoup-0.11-2.fc14.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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 630272] Review Request: ghc-tagsoup - Parsing HTML/XML documents library
by Red Hat Bugzilla 21 Sep '10

21 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 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?, fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-21 22:24:18 EDT --- > I see a line # tagsoup.htm. Can this comment be removed? This is actually a reminder that I should ship the file. Updated. Also, I had forgotten to mark the fedora-review flag. Would you mind flipping it (to keep things kosher so I'm not twiddling the flag for my own review)? New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-tagsoup Short Description: Parsing HTML/XML documents library Owners: mathstuf Branches: F-13 F-14 InitialCC: 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 620046] Review Request: ghc-terminfo - Haskell terminfo binding
by Red Hat Bugzilla 21 Sep '10

21 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=620046 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-21 22:17:41 EDT --- +:ok, NA: not applicable MUST Items: [+] MUST: rpmlint output Pasted above (comment #2). Can all be waived. [+] 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 3485c5a7c892b66b817fc28846678f5369d53d89 terminfo-0.3.1.3.tar.gz 3485c5a7c892b66b817fc28846678f5369d53d89 ../SOURCES/terminfo-0.3.1.3.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 [NA] MUST: use %find_lang macro for .po translations [NA] MUST: packages which store shared library files in the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [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 package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing. [+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. 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 must contain code, or permissable content. [NA] 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 [+] 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: 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: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. [+] SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. Package 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 629145] Review Request: ghc-cmdargs - Haskell command argument parsing
by Red Hat Bugzilla 21 Sep '10

21 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 #11 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-21 22:06:19 EDT --- 0.6 was as well. Spec URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/cmdargs/ghc-cmdargs.spec SRPM URL: http://benboeckel.net/packaging/cmdargs/ghc-cmdargs-0.6-1.fc14.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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 595603] Review Request: ghc-hslogger - Haskell logging framework
by Red Hat Bugzilla 21 Sep '10

21 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=595603 --- Comment #33 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-21 06:00:14 EDT --- https://admin.fedoraproject.org/accounts/group/view/packager -- 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 635601] New: ghc-ghc-paths-0.1.0.8 is available
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. Summary: ghc-ghc-paths-0.1.0.8 is available https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=635601 Summary: ghc-ghc-paths-0.1.0.8 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: ASSIGNED Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Severity: medium Priority: low Component: ghc-ghc-paths AssignedTo: petersen(a)redhat.com ReportedBy: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Latest upstream release: 0.1.0.8 Current version in Fedora Rawhide: 0.1.0.7 URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/ghc-paths/ 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 1

[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 #4 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-20 01:09:06 EDT --- Actually during the review, I checked the cabal file for the license short name. Since it didn't mention any short name, I didn't understand how MIT was chosen in the spec file. Probably should have worded it this way in the 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 630222] Review Request: ghc-colour - A model for human colour/color perception
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=630222 --- Comment #3 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2010-09-20 00:33:02 EDT --- Ok. I checked that page and the license text matches the one under the subheading Modern Style with sublicense. -- 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 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=595697 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 #11 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-09-19 23:13:15 EDT --- Taking this one -- 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

← Newer
1
...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
...
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