[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 723558] New: "xmonad --recompile" reports missing libX11.so library in Fedora 15 x86_64
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: "xmonad --recompile" reports missing libX11.so library in Fedora 15 x86_64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=723558
Summary: "xmonad --recompile" reports missing libX11.so library
in Fedora 15 x86_64
Product: Fedora
Version: 15
Platform: x86_64
OS/Version: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: medium
Priority: unspecified
Component: xmonad
AssignedTo: mathstuf(a)gmail.com
ReportedBy: avendael(a)gmail.com
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:
xmonad --recompile reports missing libX11.so library when the command is
invoked on an x64 system. This is because libX11.x86_64 is not installed as a
dependency when xmonad.x86_64 is installed through yum. Installing
libX11.x86_64 fixes the problem.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Name : xmonad
Arch : x86_64
Version : 0.9.2
Release : 8.fc15
How reproducible: always (100%)
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Install the x86_64 versions of xmonad, ghc-xmonad-contrib,
ghc-xmonad-contrib-devel, and xmonad-gnome
2. Create a minimal xmonad config in ~/.xmonad/xmonad.hs
3. Invoke `xmonad --recompile` in a terminal
Actual results:
`xmonad --recompile` fails with linking errors due to a missing libX11.so
Expected results:
libX11.x86_64 should be pulled as a dependency when xmonad.x86_64 is installed
to prevent the linking problem when `xmonad --recompile` is invoked.
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.
12 years, 5 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 758958] Review Request: ghc-simple-sendfile - Cross-platform sendfile system call
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=758958
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2011-12-03 01:04:27 EST ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-simple-sendfile-0.1.3-1.fc15.src.rpm
ghc-simple-sendfile-devel-0.1.3-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm
ghc-simple-sendfile-0.1.3-1.fc15.x86_64.rpm ../ghc-simple-sendfile.spec
ghc-simple-sendfile.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimumize ->
minimize, minimum, feminize
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-simple-sendfile-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
minimumize -> minimize, minimum, feminize
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
ghc-simple-sendfile.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US minimumize
-> minimize, minimum, feminize
The value of this tag appears to be misspelled. Please double-check.
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Spelling error needs to be corrected.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming-Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK. BSD license.
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum ghc-simple-sendfile-0.1.3-1.fc16.src/simple-sendfile-0.1.3.tar.gz
40ea33dd251b6a59da2f4ecb6e366c45
ghc-simple-sendfile-0.1.3-1.fc16.src/simple-sendfile-0.1.3.tar.gz
md5sum simple-sendfile-0.1.3.tar.gz
40ea33dd251b6a59da2f4ecb6e366c45 simple-sendfile-0.1.3.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides.
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-simple-sendfile
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(simple-sendfile-0.1.3) = dad3609694e5c7e9a1a965692a4d1c5e is needed
by (installed) ghc-simple-sendfile-devel-0.1.3-1.fc15.x86_64
ghc-simple-sendfile = 0.1.3-1.fc15 is needed by (installed)
ghc-simple-sendfile-devel-0.1.3-1.fc15.x86_64
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[NA]MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the packages. Imported Network.Sendfile into ghci. Loads fine
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
APPROVED.
--
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.
12 years, 5 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 759045] Review Request: ghc-base16-bytestring - ByteString hex encoding and decoding
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=759045
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2011-12-02 23:59:46 EST ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
ghc-base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.src.rpm
ghc-base16-bytestring-devel-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
../ghc-base16-bytestring.spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming - Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK BSD license. License text attached.
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
Licensed as BSD.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
LICENSE text is included.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3.tar.gz
d340e105d274c6ccca59713211805035 base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3.tar.gz
md5sum
ghc-base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.src/base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3.tar.gz
d340e105d274c6ccca59713211805035
ghc-base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.src/base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[NA]MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state
this fact in the request for review.
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides.
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[NA]MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[NA]MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix
(e.g.libfoo.so.1.1), then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must
go in a -devel package.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-base16-bytestring
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(base16-bytestring-0.1.1.3) = adb9623f350c3974db728310c2475129 is needed by
(installed) ghc-base16-bytestring-devel-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.x86_64
ghc-base16-bytestring = 0.1.1.3-1.fc16 is needed by (installed)
ghc-base16-bytestring-devel-0.1.1.3-1.fc16.x86_64
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
Checked with rpmquery --list and rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the packages. Imported Data.ByteString.Base16 into ghci. Works fine
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+]SHOULD : If source files do not have license mentioned, the packager SHOULD
query upstream.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
APPROVED.
--
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.
12 years, 5 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 756386] Review Request: ghc-unordered-containers - Efficient hashing-based container types
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=756386
Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Lakshmi Narasimhan <lakshminaras2002(a)gmail.com> 2011-12-02 23:32:00 EST ---
[+]MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
rpmlint -i ghc-unordered-containers-0.1.4.3-1.fc16.src.rpm
ghc-unordered-containers-0.1.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
ghc-unordered-containers-devel-0.1.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64.rpm
../ghc-unordered-containers.spec
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[+]MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
[+]MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
Naming - Yes
Version-release - Matches
License - OK, BSD license. License text attached.
No prebuilt external bits - OK
Spec legibity - OK
Package template - OK
Arch support - OK
Libexecdir - OK
rpmlint - yes
changelogs - OK
Source url tag - OK, validated.
Build Requires list - OK
Summary and description - OK
API documentation - OK, in devel package
[+]MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines.
Licensed with BSD license.
[+]MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+]MUST: 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 must be included in %doc.
LICENSE file is attached.
[+]MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+]MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+]MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source,as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task.
md5sum unordered-containers-0.1.4.3.tar.gz
1ec97a55ecdc117a592b8868d6d9a971 unordered-containers-0.1.4.3.tar.gz
md5sum
ghc-unordered-containers-0.1.4.3-1.fc15.src/unordered-containers-0.1.4.3.tar.gz
1ec97a55ecdc117a592b8868d6d9a971
ghc-unordered-containers-0.1.4.3-1.fc15.src/unordered-containers-0.1.4.3.tar.gz
[+]MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture.
Built on x86_64.
[+]MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
[+]MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[+]MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
Checked with rpmquery --list
[+]MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
Checked with rpmquery --whatprovides
[+]MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings.
[+]MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
Checked with ls -lR
[+]MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+]MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[+]MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+]MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application.
[+]MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[+]MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency: Requires: {name} = %{version}-%{release}
rpm -e ghc-unordered-containers
error: Failed dependencies:
ghc(unordered-containers-0.1.4.3) = c1d6bb8346be6120a0bd9146a7e3dacd is needed
by (installed) ghc-unordered-containers-devel-0.1.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64
ghc-unordered-containers = 0.1.4.3-1.fc16 is needed by (installed)
ghc-unordered-containers-devel-0.1.4.3-1.fc16.x86_64
[NA]MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[+]MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+]MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Should items
[+]SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[+]SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
Installed the packages. Loaded Data.HashMap.Lazy into ghci. Loads fine.
[+]SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+]SHOULD : If source files do not have license mentioned, the packager SHOULD
query upstream.
cabal2spec-diff is OK.
APPROVED.
--
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.
12 years, 5 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 750317] New: quickcheck doesn't work
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: quickcheck doesn't work
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750317
Summary: quickcheck doesn't work
Product: Fedora
Version: 16
Platform: Unspecified
OS/Version: Unspecified
Status: NEW
Severity: unspecified
Priority: unspecified
Component: ghc
AssignedTo: petersen(a)redhat.com
ReportedBy: vadie.developer(a)gmail.com
QAContact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: petersen(a)redhat.com, bos(a)serpentine.com,
fedora-haskell-list(a)redhat.com
Classification: Fedora
Story Points: ---
Type: ---
Description of problem:
I'm no haskell expert, but i'm sure your package for quickcheck doesn't work
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
GHC 7.0.4, fedora 16 default version.
How reproducible:
just install ghc-quicheck through yumex or yum or whatever
Steps to Reproduce:
1.install ghc-quickcheck
2.realiaze that it doesn't work no module Test.QuickCheck
3.
Actual results:
no Test.QuickCheck module , what's wrong?
you messed up big time with dependencies?
Expected results:
there should have been a module Test.QuickCheck after installing ghc-quickcheck
,should have worked like the vanilla package.
Additional info:
seriously, this makes me furious!! (i'm trying to learn haskell :()
No way, i can tell you what's wrong , i'm no haskell expert.
when i asked help in #haskell , there folks whined about, fedora splitting
software.
--
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.
12 years, 5 months