[Bug 2025153] New: Review Request: hasktags - Produces ctags "tags" and etags "TAGS" files for Haskell programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Bug ID: 2025153 Summary: Review Request: hasktags - Produces ctags "tags" and etags "TAGS" files for Haskell programs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: petersen@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hasktags/hasktags.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hasktags/hasktags-0.72.0-1.fc35.sr...
Description: Produces ctags "tags" and etags "TAGS" files for Haskell programs.
Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=79099995
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
--- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Seems ghc-tags might replace this though it needs ghc-9.2 really.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
--- Comment #2 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- (Also ghc-tags may not have feature parity yet - eg it doesn't know about cabal_macros.h)
But anyway I made a copr of ghc-tags: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/petersen/ghc-tags/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|unspecified |medium
Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com has canceled Package Review package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org's request for Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com's needinfo: Bug 2025153: Review Request: hasktags - Produces ctags "tags" and etags "TAGS" files for Haskell programs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(petersen@redhat.c | |om) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |WONTFIX Last Closed| |2024-10-30 10:20:25
--- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Closing this for now in favor of ghc-tags (not yet submitted) which seems has more accurate parser.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|WONTFIX |--- Status|CLOSED |NEW Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #5 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Reopening since this actually seems the most reliable tags tool for Haskell.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
--- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hasktags/hasktags.spec SRPM URL: https://petersen.fedorapeople.org/reviews/hasktags/hasktags-0.73.0-1.fc44.sr...
- update to 0.73
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://hackage.haskell.org | |/package/hasktags
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9968429 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Found issues:
- No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
Please know that there can be false-positives.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org Flags| |fedora-review+ CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Status|NEW |POST
--- Comment #8 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. Note: No gcc, gcc-c++ or clang found in BuildRequires See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/C_and_C++/
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
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: "Unknown or generated", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/hasktags/2025153- hasktags/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 6168 bytes in 3 files. [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). [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc- hasktags , ghc-hasktags-prof [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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: hasktags-0.73.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ghc-hasktags-0.73.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ghc-hasktags-devel-0.73.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm ghc-hasktags-prof-0.73.0-1.fc44.x86_64.rpm hasktags-0.73.0-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpwyyv80c0')] checks: 32, packages: 5
ghc-hasktags-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/hasktags-0.73.0/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovG w3kU8X9QDPV5QP2.a ghc-hasktags-prof.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/hasktags-0.73.0/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw 3kU8X9QDPV5QP2_p.a hasktags.src: E: spelling-error ('ctags', 'Summary(en_US) ctags -> crags, tags, stags') hasktags.src: E: spelling-error ('etags', 'Summary(en_US) etags -> stage, etas, tags') hasktags.src: E: spelling-error ('ctags', '%description -l en_US ctags -> crags, tags, stags') hasktags.src: E: spelling-error ('etags', '%description -l en_US etags -> stage, etas, tags') hasktags.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ctags', 'Summary(en_US) ctags -> crags, tags, stags') hasktags.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('etags', 'Summary(en_US) etags -> stage, etas, tags') hasktags.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ctags', '%description -l en_US ctags -> crags, tags, stags') hasktags.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('etags', '%description -l en_US etags -> stage, etas, tags') hasktags.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/hasktags ghc-hasktags.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-hasktags-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 10 errors, 3 warnings, 23 filtered, 10 badness; has taken 1.7 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 4
ghc-hasktags.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2-ghc9.8.4 .so /lib64/libm.so.6 ghc-hasktags.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2-ghc9.8.4 .so /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHSsyb-0.7.2.4-1NLONHeV7CNALmYsnoisoV-ghc9.8.4.so ghc-hasktags.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2-ghc9.8.4 .so /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/x86_64-linux-ghc-9.8.4/libHSparsec-3.1.17.0-db41-ghc9.8.4.so ghc-hasktags.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2-ghc9.8.4 .so /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHSmicrolens-platform-0.4.3.6-GGAQ7ng75pQDKidRzs1N5T-ghc9.8.4.so ghc-hasktags.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2-ghc9.8.4 .so /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHSvector-0.13.2.0-WoGhxe9rar2AgNN1w6KXF-ghc9.8.4.so ghc-hasktags.x86_64: E: unused-direct-shlib-dependency /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2-ghc9.8.4 .so /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHSvector-stream-0.1.0.1-KENGI2ESqaZ3hdcHDMqAVW-ghc9.8.4.so : : ghc-hasktags.x86_64: E: undefined-non-weak-symbol /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2-ghc9.8.4.so n ewCAF (/usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2-ghc9.8.4.so) ghc-hasktags-devel.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/hasktags-0.73.0/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovG w3kU8X9QDPV5QP2.a ghc-hasktags-prof.x86_64: E: static-library-without-debuginfo /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/hasktags-0.73.0/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw 3kU8X9QDPV5QP2_p.a hasktags.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ctags', 'Summary(en_US) ctags -> crags, tags, stags') hasktags.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('etags', 'Summary(en_US) etags -> stage, etas, tags') hasktags.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('ctags', '%description -l en_US ctags -> crags, tags, stags') hasktags.x86_64: E: spelling-error ('etags', '%description -l en_US etags -> stage, etas, tags') hasktags.x86_64: W: position-independent-executable-suggested /usr/bin/hasktags ghc-hasktags.x86_64: W: no-documentation ghc-hasktags-prof.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1575 errors, 3 warnings, 19 filtered, 1575 badness; has taken 1.2 s
Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-hasktags: /usr/lib64/ghc-9.8.4/lib/libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2-ghc9.8.4.so
Source checksums ---------------- https://hackage.haskell.org/package/hasktags-0.73.0/hasktags-0.73.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d002d50b16077e26d7901bf21ea841187d36f88fabf186f9eb77d6f61e280f70 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d002d50b16077e26d7901bf21ea841187d36f88fabf186f9eb77d6f61e280f70 https://hackage.haskell.org/package/hasktags-0.73.0/hasktags.cabal#/hasktags... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f7557045437522f41ebbe78e6a3cea1c4f4a1542a281d788d5ba8949feacb39c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f7557045437522f41ebbe78e6a3cea1c4f4a1542a281d788d5ba8949feacb39c
Requires -------- hasktags (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glibc libc.so.6()(64bit) libffi.so.8()(64bit) libffi.so.8(LIBFFI_BASE_8.0)(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-hasktags (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libHSarray-0.5.8.0-fb6f-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.19.2.0-6e03-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSbinary-0.8.9.1-3bda-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.12.1.0-bb11-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.6.8-b2d8-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.5.1.0-0513-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSdirectory-1.3.8.5-6679-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSexceptions-0.10.7-302f-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSfilepath-1.4.301.0-b305-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSghc-bignum-1.3-6046-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSghc-boot-th-9.8.4-73a9-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.11.0-a7b1-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHShashable-1.4.7.0-4sYUjiqCRWp1Ivr6Bfittp-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSjson-0.11-8NDE5qQn1lLH8emAi3S4Td-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSmicrolens-0.4.13.1-GwT4MlahIXhB4sB7HXWBDJ-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSmicrolens-ghc-0.4.14.3-BAdr5CIjPKrI3KJZbw2zO0-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSmicrolens-mtl-0.2.0.3-It6n75fmAnPA8LYgY1OyhD-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSmicrolens-platform-0.4.3.6-GGAQ7ng75pQDKidRzs1N5T-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSmicrolens-th-0.4.3.17-5xsCQofWNBSIR8GDyRaYoy-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSmtl-2.3.1-7365-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSos-string-2.0.7-LjoE4uZSBZ73BbdeBYQJa6-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSparsec-3.1.17.0-db41-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSpretty-1.1.3.6-b6ac-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSprimitive-0.9.0.0-9lWW508Z1zq4f32hztDYir-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSstm-2.5.3.1-ca51-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSsyb-0.7.2.4-1NLONHeV7CNALmYsnoisoV-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHStemplate-haskell-2.21.0.0-98b0-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHStext-2.1.1-1bf1-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSth-abstraction-0.7.1.0-80oylQNbrmxDZOJexbHcoi-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.12.2-7526-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-0.6.1.0-da7f-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-compat-0.7.2-9uBIUn9bgjL3AwHN60vb9R-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSunix-2.8.6.0-1a2e-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit)
libHSunordered-containers-0.2.20-KA9cmPMMMq97KcjgGqmnLp-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSutf8-string-1.0.2-EeOLwISm4Cq6iTMYFaF5F9-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSvector-0.13.2.0-WoGhxe9rar2AgNN1w6KXF-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libHSvector-stream-0.1.0.1-KENGI2ESqaZ3hdcHDMqAVW-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
ghc-hasktags-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.19.2.0-6e03) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.12.1.0-bb11) ghc-devel(directory-1.3.8.5-6679) ghc-devel(filepath-1.4.301.0-b305) ghc-devel(json-0.11-8NDE5qQn1lLH8emAi3S4Td) ghc-devel(microlens-platform-0.4.3.6-GGAQ7ng75pQDKidRzs1N5T) ghc-devel(utf8-string-1.0.2-EeOLwISm4Cq6iTMYFaF5F9) ghc-hasktags(x86-64)
ghc-hasktags-prof (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc-hasktags-devel(x86-64) ghc-prof(base-4.19.2.0-6e03) ghc-prof(bytestring-0.12.1.0-bb11) ghc-prof(directory-1.3.8.5-6679) ghc-prof(filepath-1.4.301.0-b305) ghc-prof(json-0.11-8NDE5qQn1lLH8emAi3S4Td) ghc-prof(microlens-platform-0.4.3.6-GGAQ7ng75pQDKidRzs1N5T) ghc-prof(utf8-string-1.0.2-EeOLwISm4Cq6iTMYFaF5F9)
Provides -------- hasktags: hasktags hasktags(x86-64)
ghc-hasktags: ghc-hasktags ghc-hasktags(x86-64) libHShasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2-ghc9.8.4.so()(64bit)
ghc-hasktags-devel: ghc-devel(hasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2) ghc-hasktags-devel ghc-hasktags-devel(x86-64) ghc-hasktags-static ghc-hasktags-static(x86-64)
ghc-hasktags-prof: ghc-hasktags-prof ghc-hasktags-prof(x86-64) ghc-prof(hasktags-0.73.0-IOBSovGw3kU8X9QDPV5QP2)
Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2025153 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: C/C++, Haskell, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: PHP, SugarActivity, R, Perl, Ocaml, Java, Python, fonts Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=141257249 b) Approved c) Review of: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2430667 would be appreciated if time and expertise allow.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/hasktags
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
--- Comment #10 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- Thank you very much for the review, Benson!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED Fixed In Version| |hasktags-0.73.0-1.fc44
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2026-322c6371ec (hasktags-0.73.0-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-322c6371ec
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2026-31aa442cb8 (hasktags-0.73.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-31aa442cb8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2026-322c6371ec has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-322c6371ec *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-322c6371ec
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2026-31aa442cb8 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2026-31aa442cb8 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2026-31aa442cb8
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
--- Comment #15 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com --- https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/80729
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |MODIFIED
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2026-b10d4b87bf (ghc-json-0.11-1.el10_2 and hasktags-0.73.0-1.el10_2) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.2. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-b10d4b87bf
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2026-b10d4b87bf has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2026-b10d4b87bf
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed|2024-10-30 10:20:25 |2026-01-27 05:36:52
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2026-322c6371ec (hasktags-0.73.0-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2026-31aa442cb8 (hasktags-0.73.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2025153
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2026-b10d4b87bf (ghc-json-0.11-1.el10_2 and hasktags-0.73.0-1.el10_2) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.2 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com