haskell-devel March 2013

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
270 discussions

[Bug 919339] Review Request: ghc-lrucache - Simple pure LRU cache
by Red Hat Bugzilla 11 Mar '13

11 Mar '13

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919339 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-lrucache Short Description: Simple pure LRU cache Owners: petersen Branches: f18 f17 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rEfowpOWg7&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 919339] Review Request: ghc-lrucache - Simple pure LRU cache
by Red Hat Bugzilla 11 Mar '13

11 Mar '13

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919339 --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thanks Michael for reviewing. > - The -devel package has multiple dependencies on ghc-compiler (may be > perfectly expected & acceptable, esp. since other Haskell -devel > packages on my system exhibit this behavior) That is because of Requires(post) and Requires(postun): the generated %post and %postun scripts run "ghc-pkg recache". So yes it is expected - it is kind of a rpm bug that it does distinguish install script requires from normal ones. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oTn8XQexZp&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 919339] Review Request: ghc-lrucache - Simple pure LRU cache
by Red Hat Bugzilla 11 Mar '13

11 Mar '13

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919339 Michael Ekstrand <michael(a)elehack.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Michael Ekstrand <michael(a)elehack.net> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The -devel package has multiple dependencies on ghc-compiler (may be perfectly expected & acceptable, esp. since other Haskell -devel packages on my system exhibit this behavior) ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: 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 is included in %doc. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 286720 bytes in 26 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ghc-lrucache-devel depends on ghc-compiler muliple times; don't know if that's a problem or not. [?]: Package functions as described. NOTE: As this is a library, and I don't have anything that uses, it, I didn't have a great way to test it. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- ghc-lrucache-1.1.1.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm: rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 ghc(base-4.5.0.0-40b99d05fae6a4eea95ea69e6e0c9702) ghc(containers-0.4.2.1-cfc6420ecc2194c9ed977b06bdfd9e69) libHSarray-0.4.0.0-ghc7.4.1.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.5.0.0-ghc7.4.1.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.4.2.1-ghc7.4.1.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.0-ghc7.4.1.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.2.0.0-ghc7.4.1.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.4.0.0-ghc7.4.1.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 ghc-lrucache-devel-1.1.1.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm: ghc-compiler = 7.4.1 ghc-compiler = 7.4.1 ghc-compiler = 7.4.1 ghc-lrucache = 1.1.1.3-1.fc18 /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 ghc-devel(base-4.5.0.0-40b99d05fae6a4eea95ea69e6e0c9702) ghc-devel(containers-0.4.2.1-cfc6420ecc2194c9ed977b06bdfd9e69) ghc(lrucache-1.1.1.3-2d0d2183a25540707cf67df25c4a5898) rpmlib(PayloadIsXz) <= 5.2-1 Provides -------- ghc-lrucache-1.1.1.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm: ghc-lrucache = 1.1.1.3-1.fc18 ghc-lrucache(x86-64) = 1.1.1.3-1.fc18 ghc(lrucache-1.1.1.3-2d0d2183a25540707cf67df25c4a5898) libHSlrucache-1.1.1.3-ghc7.4.1.so()(64bit) ghc-lrucache-devel-1.1.1.3-1.fc18.x86_64.rpm: ghc-lrucache-doc = 1.1.1.3-1.fc18 ghc-lrucache-prof = 1.1.1.3-1.fc18 ghc-lrucache-devel = 1.1.1.3-1.fc18 ghc-lrucache-devel(x86-64) = 1.1.1.3-1.fc18 ghc-devel(lrucache-1.1.1.3-2d0d2183a25540707cf67df25c4a5898) MD5-sum check ------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/lrucache/1.1.1.3/lrucache-1.1.1… : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 950657e42642e5bed214409892183d3b01aff295b41b48d8bb7cccec3ced52b6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 950657e42642e5bed214409892183d3b01aff295b41b48d8bb7cccec3ced52b6 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 919339 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=OL6RZh2u86&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 919339] Review Request: ghc-lrucache - Simple pure LRU cache
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Mar '13

10 Mar '13

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919339 Michael Ekstrand <michael(a)elehack.net> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |michael(a)elehack.net Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |michael(a)elehack.net Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=bHNaOHD3RN&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 919851] Review Request: ghc-IfElse - Anaphoric and miscellaneous useful control-flow
by Red Hat Bugzilla 10 Mar '13

10 Mar '13

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919851 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |haskell-devel(a)lists.fedorap | |roject.org --- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Needed for git-annex -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BxHdps6Flt&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 885349] Review Request: ghc-wai-logger - A logging system for WAI
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Mar '13

09 Mar '13

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885349 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-wai-logger-0.1.4-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=quaGEd0Syt&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 634048] Haskell Package Reviews Tracker bug
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Mar '13

09 Mar '13

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634048 Bug 634048 depends on bug 885349, which changed state. Bug 885349 Summary: Review Request: ghc-wai-logger - A logging system for WAI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885349 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are the assignee for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 885349] Review Request: ghc-wai-logger - A logging system for WAI
by Red Hat Bugzilla 09 Mar '13

09 Mar '13

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=885349 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-03-08 18:52:23 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Q2smfGAfK2&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 919339] Review Request: ghc-lrucache - Simple pure LRU cache
by Red Hat Bugzilla 08 Mar '13

08 Mar '13

Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919339 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |haskell-devel(a)lists.fedorap | |roject.org Blocks| |892584 Alias| |ghc-lrucache -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=foglTWyB64&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 707569] New: xmonad GNOME session fails to start properly
by Red Hat Bugzilla 02 Mar '13

02 Mar '13

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. Summary: xmonad GNOME session fails to start properly https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=707569 Summary: xmonad GNOME session fails to start properly Product: Fedora Version: 15 Platform: x86_64 OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: high Priority: unspecified Component: xmonad AssignedTo: mathstuf(a)gmail.com ReportedBy: conan(a)irconan.co.uk QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, mathstuf(a)gmail.com, fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Description of problem: Using the xmonad GNOME session using default configuration of Fedora 15 fails to start up. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 0.9.2-7.fc15.x86_64 How reproducible: Always occurs. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install xmonad 2. Log out 3. Log in using "xmonad GNOME" session Actual results: Window saying "Oh no!" appears with a button to logout. Expected results: GNOME starts up using xmonad as the window manager Additional info: -- 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 8

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel March 2013