haskell-devel August 2018

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

1 participants
68 discussions

[Bug 1544059] New: happy-1.19.9 is available
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 18 Aug '18

18 Aug '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1544059 Bug ID: 1544059 Summary: happy-1.19.9 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: happy Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, petersen(a)redhat.com Latest upstream release: 1.19.9 Current version/release in rawhide: 1.19.8-1.fc28 URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/happy Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/1294/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 1

[Bug 1444630] New: ghc-pipes-4.3.3 is available
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 18 Aug '18

18 Aug '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1444630 Bug ID: 1444630 Summary: ghc-pipes-4.3.3 is available Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: ghc-pipes Keywords: FutureFeature, Triaged Assignee: petersen(a)redhat.com Reporter: upstream-release-monitoring(a)fedoraproject.org QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org CC: haskell-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, petersen(a)redhat.com Latest upstream release: 4.3.3 Current version/release in rawhide: 4.3.2-1.fc26 URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/pipes Please consult the package updates policy before you issue an update to a stable branch: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Updates_Policy More information about the service that created this bug can be found at: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upstream_release_monitoring Please keep in mind that with any upstream change, there may also be packaging changes that need to be made. Specifically, please remember that it is your responsibility to review the new version to ensure that the licensing is still correct and that no non-free or legally problematic items have been added upstream. Based on the information from anitya: https://release-monitoring.org/project/942/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 16

[Bug 1618490] Review Request: rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc28 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 28. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-fc4183cbcd -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1618490] Review Request: rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1618490] Review Request: rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc27 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 27. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2018-9210e493f6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1618490] Review Request: rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/rpmbuild-order -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1618490] Review Request: rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thank you, Robert-André, for the review https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/7695 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1618490] Review Request: rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490 Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |zebob.m(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebob.m(a)gmail.com> --- - Package approved. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review /rpmbuild-order/review-rpmbuild-order/licensecheck.txt [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. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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 ===== 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc29.x86_64.rpm rpmbuild-order-0.2.1-1.fc29.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1618490] Review Request: rpmbuild-order - Order RPM packages by dependencies
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 17 Aug '18

17 Aug '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1618490 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> --- Spec: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rpmbuild-order/rpmbuild-order.spec SRPM: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/rpmbuild-order/rpmbuild-order-0.2.… Added a simple manpage -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

[Bug 1594765] Review Request: idris - Functional Programming Language with Dependent Types
by bugzilla＠redhat.com 14 Aug '18

14 Aug '18

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594765 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2018-08-14 17:08:01 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- idris-1.3.0-4.fc28 has been pushed to the Fedora 28 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel August 2018