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=546376
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Whiteboard|NotReady |notready
--
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.
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=460974
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
--
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.
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=546376
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status Whiteboard| |NotReady
--
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.
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=530688
--- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-14 21:04:24 EST ---
Pinging again.
This package was approved in November and still no cvs request or build.
--
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.
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=537979
--- Comment #21 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-02 19:10:08 EST ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #19)
>
> > Thanks for the info, but I don't see common_summary or common_description used
> > there.
>
> Which version of ghc-rpm-macros are you looking at?
ghc-rpm-macros-0.2.5-1.fc12.noarch
> ghc-rpm-macros BR is versioned:
Strange, I wonder why I could install/mock it then. Might have been the wrong
package then.
> I hope that might satisfy your curiosity. :)
Indeed, it does. Everything looks fine in CVS now, so I let this review rest.
--
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.
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=537979
--- Comment #20 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-02 04:55:28 EST ---
(In reply to comment #19)
> Thanks for the info, but I don't see common_summary or common_description used
> there.
Which version of ghc-rpm-macros are you looking at?
> Other warnings/error are false positives, but still rpmlint is part of a
> review and the rpmlint output should be posted.
Agreed
> > The package is for rawhide and requires ghc-6.12.1
> > it will [not] build in f12 without latest ghc and ghc-rpm-macros.
> Then it should have proper versioned BuildRequires. The version numbers may
> only be omitted, if all supported Fedora releases satisfy the versions.
ghc-rpm-macros BR is versioned: later I may want to backport the package
to F12 with updated macros there - then a ghc version would be unnecesary.
ie the latest macros assume ghc-6.12.1 not the package itself per se.
I suppose ghc-rpm-macros could have a requires on ghc but I was trying
to avoid that I think.
> I just wanted to test if the package builds in mock, and currently 0.3.9 does
> not: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1955760
You're right, it seems I made a mistake and didn't upload the actual package
that scratch-built in koji... :(
I uploaded
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-hashed-storage/final/ghc-hashed-storag…
which I believe was the correct package and also what I imported to cvs.
I hope that might satisfy your curiosity. :)
Honesty I am very busy at work right and don't really have time
for a review inquisition but if you feel great malpractice and
incompetence took place here you can reopen.
I think we got absorbed in the license question and then Lozenzo
forgot to confirm that that package builds, but it was fixed anyway
before importing so not a big deal IMHO.
--
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.
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=537979
--- Comment #19 from Christoph Wickert <cwickert(a)fedoraproject.org> 2010-02-01 04:12:39 EST ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > I'm not familiar with haskell, but looking at the spec I wonder what's the use
> > of using globals for name, summary and description and depends?
>
> Because they are used by ghc-rpm-macros.
Thanks for the info, but I don't see common_summary or common_description used
there.
> > $ rpmlint ~/Desktop/ghc-hashed-storage-0.3.9-2.fc12.src.rpm
> > ghc-hashed-storage.src: W: strange-permission hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz 0600
>
> Was fixed in cvs import.
Right. Other warnings/error are false positives, but still rpmlint is part of a
review and the rpmlint output should be posted. If this doesn't happen, I don't
consider this a proper review.
> The package is for rawhide and requires ghc-6.12.1
> it will build in f12 without latest ghc and ghc-rpm-macros.
Then it should have proper versioned BuildRequires. The version numbers may
only be omitted, if all supported Fedora releases satisfy the versions.
> 0.3.9 package is in rawhide...
>
> What do you need this package for? cabal-install may be your friend:
> "cabal install hashed-storage".
I just wanted to test if the package builds in mock, and currently 0.3.9 does
not: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1955760
--
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.
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=537979
--- Comment #18 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2010-02-01 01:43:04 EST ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> I'm not familiar with haskell, but looking at the spec I wonder what's the use
> of using globals for name, summary and description and depends?
Because they are used by ghc-rpm-macros.
> $ rpmlint ~/Desktop/ghc-hashed-storage-0.3.9-2.fc12.src.rpm
> ghc-hashed-storage.src: W: strange-permission hashed-storage-0.3.9.tar.gz 0600
Was fixed in cvs import.
> ghc-hashed-storage.src: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
> ghc-hashed-storage.src: W: no-buildroot-tag
rpmlint needs updating... they are now superfluous.
> $ rpmlint ghc-hashed-storage*0.3.9-2.fc13.i686.rpm
> ghc-hashed-storage.i686: W: unstripped-binary-or-object
> /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/hashed-storage-0.3.9/libHShashed-storage-0.3.9-ghc6.12.1.so
> ghc-hashed-storage.i686: W: executable-stack
> /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/hashed-storage-0.3.9/libHShashed-storage-0.3.9-ghc6.12.1.so
This are normal fpr ghc libs.
> ghc-hashed-storage-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
ghc-hashed-storage-doc
> ghc-hashed-storage-prof.i686: E: devel-dependency ghc-hashed-storage-devel
Yes it is needed.
> ghc-hashed-storage-prof.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package
> /usr/lib/ghc-6.12.1/hashed-storage-0.3.9/libHShashed-storage-0.3.9_p.a
normal
> F-12:
> + %cabal_configure --ghc -p
> /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.sYV5fI: line 29: fg: no job control
The package is for rawhide and requires ghc-6.12.1
it will build in f12 without latest ghc and ghc-rpm-macros.
(No not all fedora packages are backported to earlier releases...)
> F-13:
0.3.9 package is in rawhide...
What do you need this package for? cabal-install may be your friend:
"cabal install hashed-storage".
--
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.