Apologies if you receive this twice; I have forwarded this to the general list instead of the bugzilla list.
Hello,
The ghc-cryptohash packages builds both ghc-cryptonite and ghc-memory [1]. Why is this the case?
I spent a long time trying to figure out where I was getting ghc-memory from when it could not be found on packages [2], koji [3], bodhi [4], or release-monitoring [5]. It's only when I looked for the RPM on koji did I figure out it's a subpackage, because that's just totally unexpected, especially because there's an open review request for it [6].
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ghc-cryptohash.git/ tree/ghc-cryptohash.spec#n20 [2] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/s/ghc-memory [3] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?match=glob& type=package&terms=ghc-memory [4] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=ghc-memory [5] https://release-monitoring.org/projects/search/?pattern=memory [6] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=ghc-memory
Good question - the subpackaging is just a hack (and yes it is confusing sorry) to workaround packaging manpower basically.
Package reviews for such subpackages are very welcome and will replace the subpackages in the long term, assuming the current detailed Package Review workflow continues.
I didn't understand from your mail what led you to post this question?
Hope that helps,
Jens
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Elliott Sales de Andrade < quantum.analyst@gmail.com> wrote:
The ghc-cryptohash packages builds both ghc-cryptonite and ghc-memory [1]. Why is this the case?
I spent a long time trying to figure out where I was getting ghc-memory from when it could not be found on packages [2], koji [3], bodhi [4], or release-monitoring [5]. It's only when I looked for the RPM on koji did I figure out it's a subpackage, because that's just totally unexpected, especially because there's an open review request for it [6].
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ghc-cryptohash.git/t ree/ghc-cryptohash.spec#n20 [2] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/s/ghc-memory [3] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?match=glob&type= package&terms=ghc-memory [4] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=ghc-memory [5] https://release-monitoring.org/projects/search/?pattern=memory [6] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=ghc-memory
Hi Jens,
I am packaging git-annex in a copr [1]. As I'm sure you're aware, it requires ~100 dependent packages. When one package fails to build, it's usually because some dependencies are built against some differing versions of _another_ dependency. Thus I need to figure out where these packages originate and possibly grab the source to rebuild in the copr. This is made more difficult by them being "invisible".
I could help with reviews, but cannot approve anything without being sponsored.
[1] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/qulogic/git-annex/
On 8 August 2017 at 07:28, Jens-Ulrik Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
Good question - the subpackaging is just a hack (and yes it is confusing sorry) to workaround packaging manpower basically.
Package reviews for such subpackages are very welcome and will replace the subpackages in the long term, assuming the current detailed Package Review workflow continues.
I didn't understand from your mail what led you to post this question?
Hope that helps,
Jens
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Elliott Sales de Andrade < quantum.analyst@gmail.com> wrote:
The ghc-cryptohash packages builds both ghc-cryptonite and ghc-memory [1]. Why is this the case?
I spent a long time trying to figure out where I was getting ghc-memory from when it could not be found on packages [2], koji [3], bodhi [4], or release-monitoring [5]. It's only when I looked for the RPM on koji did I figure out it's a subpackage, because that's just totally unexpected, especially because there's an open review request for it [6].
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ghc-cryptohash.git/t ree/ghc-cryptohash.spec#n20 [2] https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/s/ghc-memory [3] https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/search?match=glob&type=p ackage&terms=ghc-memory [4] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/?packages=ghc-memory [5] https://release-monitoring.org/projects/search/?pattern=memory [6] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=ghc-memory
haskell mailing list -- haskell@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to haskell-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 02:04:42AM -0400, Elliott Sales de Andrade wrote:
I could help with reviews, but cannot approve anything without being sponsored.
Btw. I'm also happy to do some reviewing. The last once I was interested in tho were missing updated spec files (the ones posted ended up in a 404).
So if there are specific ones, let me know :)
Kind Regards,
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 16:20:59 +1000, Róman Joost wrote:
Btw. I'm also happy to do some reviewing. The last once I was interested in tho were missing updated spec files (the ones posted ended up in a 404).
Yeah, sorry about that. My hosting admin hasn't responded about hooking up the vhost. I also haven't had time for Fedora much at all lately either :( . I'll try and upload the packages I have reviews for to fp.o and that have been pinged this weekend (Sunday is probably the earliest you'll see them).
--Ben
Dear Ben,
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 07:35:57AM -0400, Ben Boeckel wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 16:20:59 +1000, Róman Joost wrote:
Btw. I'm also happy to do some reviewing. The last once I was interested in tho were missing updated spec files (the ones posted ended up in a 404).
Yeah, sorry about that. My hosting admin hasn't responded about hooking up the vhost. I also haven't had time for Fedora much at all lately either :( . I'll try and upload the packages I have reviews for to fp.o and that have been pinged this weekend (Sunday is probably the earliest you'll see them).
No reason to be sorry. I also have sporadic peaks of spare time I can spent on some of these, so don't worry. Thank you for filing the reviews in the first place.
Kind Regards,
Hi Ben,
On 11 August 2017 at 07:35, Ben Boeckel mathstuf@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 16:20:59 +1000, Róman Joost wrote:
Btw. I'm also happy to do some reviewing. The last once I was interested in tho were missing updated spec files (the ones posted ended up in a 404).
Yeah, sorry about that. My hosting admin hasn't responded about hooking up the vhost. I also haven't had time for Fedora much at all lately either :( . I'll try and upload the packages I have reviews for to fp.o and that have been pinged this weekend (Sunday is probably the earliest you'll see them).
As I was recently sponsored, I've made a comment on all your review requests that are 404 and I'd be willing to review. I also added a note if I know it to be outdated as well.
--Ben _______________________________________________ haskell mailing list -- haskell@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to haskell-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
haskell@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ben Boeckel -
Elliott Sales de Andrade -
Jens-Ulrik Petersen -
Róman Joost