July 2013 - haskell-devel - Fedora mailing-lists

[Bug 984791] Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-conduit - Consume attoparsec parsers via conduit
by Red Hat Bugzilla 18 Jul '13

18 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984791 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=fEiba4Cw7Y&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 983901] Review Request: ghc-path-pieces - Components of paths
by Red Hat Bugzilla 18 Jul '13

18 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983901 --- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=L9gMDgJH9z&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 983901] Review Request: ghc-path-pieces - Components of paths
by Red Hat Bugzilla 18 Jul '13

18 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983901 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=p3OTVzTmEY&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 962251] Review Request: ghc-libxml-sax - Haskell bindings for the libxml2 SAX interface
by Red Hat Bugzilla 18 Jul '13

18 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962251 --- Comment #8 from Dan Callaghan <dcallagh(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #7) > I assume you mean "xml2-devel"? Yeah I am planning to improve that. > Eventually I would also like cabal-rpm to support updating of packages > but that is a bit more complicated. > > For now you can use cabal-rpm-diff (cblrpm-diff) to compare your > spec file to what cblrpm would generate. So yeah it is a manual > process - I usually use a merge tool to merge changes from .spec.cblrpm > to .spec. But removing the comments just adds to the diff. :) > We generally try to stay close to the cblrpm output. Yes quite right, I have left the comments and whitespace as is to make the diffs easier to read. Thanks for the tip about cabal-rpm-diff too (I was just running cabal-rpm, overwriting the .spec, and then using git diff... ultimately the same thing I guess). > Suggestions for improving the Summary and Description output > are welcome - in this case not sure how cblrpm could do better. :) Yeah I don't think there is any way cabal-rpm could do better with the description/summary, if the upstream one isn't exactly suitable for Fedora. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=VrHjMpagYQ&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 962251] Review Request: ghc-libxml-sax - Haskell bindings for the libxml2 SAX interface
by Red Hat Bugzilla 18 Jul '13

18 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962251 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |petersen(a)redhat.com --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Dan Callaghan from comment #3) > Well, I cleaned out some comments/whitespace because I figured I would be > maintaining the spec by hand, since cabal-rpm got the description, summary, > and BuildRequires wrong. Is there a better way? I assume you mean "xml2-devel"? Yeah I am planning to improve that. Eventually I would also like cabal-rpm to support updating of packages but that is a bit more complicated. For now you can use cabal-rpm-diff (cblrpm-diff) to compare your spec file to what cblrpm would generate. So yeah it is a manual process - I usually use a merge tool to merge changes from .spec.cblrpm to .spec. But removing the comments just adds to the diff. :) We generally try to stay close to the cblrpm output. Suggestions for improving the Summary and Description output are welcome - in this case not sure how cblrpm could do better. :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=mkVUFk4Z7J&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 974722] Review Request: ghc-uuid - For creating, comparing, parsing and printing Universally Unique Identifiers
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974722 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|Ready | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=t5uY3PbHQR&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 974722] Review Request: ghc-uuid - For creating, comparing, parsing and printing Universally Unique Identifiers
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974722 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |petersen(a)redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Basically looks fine to me. It might be simpler just to drop the sentence with the general wikipedia link from the description - it doesn't really add much and would silence the rpmlint warnings. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. Note: Archive *.a files found in ghc-uuid-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries This is okay for Fedora Haskell libraries. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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]: %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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ghc-uuid- devel [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 266240 bytes in 34 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). ===== 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-uuid-1.2.13-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-uuid-devel-1.2.13-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-uuid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP ghc-uuid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wikipedia -> Wikipedia 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ghc-uuid ghc-uuid-devel ghc-uuid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP ghc-uuid.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US wikipedia -> Wikipedia 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ghc-uuid (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc(binary-0.5.1.1-72ed744c57c32286a49da6dda4f660b7) ghc(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc(cryptohash-0.9.0-0ba4475009ee4b050dc584237978f005) ghc(maccatcher-2.1.5-2a37b19012ffa0b6954e320cc463cef6) ghc(random-1.0.1.1-43fdc5da991685d8a0ec8cb553880cf8) ghc(time-1.4.0.1-10dc4804a19dc0000fab79908f1a9f50) libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbinary-0.5.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.10.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHScereal-0.3.5.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHScrypto-api-0.11-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHScryptohash-0.9.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdirectory-1.2.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSentropy-0.2.2.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSfilepath-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSmaccatcher-2.1.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSmtl-2.1.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSold-locale-1.0.0.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSparsec-3.1.3-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSprocess-1.1.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSrandom-1.0.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStagged-0.6-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStext-0.11.3.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSunix-2.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ghc-uuid-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(uuid-1.2.13-5133e095ef95113b00d6ce64e688aca9) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc-devel(binary-0.5.1.1-72ed744c57c32286a49da6dda4f660b7) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc-devel(cryptohash-0.9.0-0ba4475009ee4b050dc584237978f005) ghc-devel(maccatcher-2.1.5-2a37b19012ffa0b6954e320cc463cef6) ghc-devel(random-1.0.1.1-43fdc5da991685d8a0ec8cb553880cf8) ghc-devel(time-1.4.0.1-10dc4804a19dc0000fab79908f1a9f50) ghc-uuid Provides -------- ghc-uuid: ghc(uuid-1.2.13-5133e095ef95113b00d6ce64e688aca9) ghc-uuid ghc-uuid(x86-64) libHSuuid-1.2.13-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) ghc-uuid-devel: ghc-devel(uuid-1.2.13-5133e095ef95113b00d6ce64e688aca9) ghc-uuid-devel ghc-uuid-devel(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-uuid: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/uuid-1.2.13/libHSuuid-1.2.13-ghc7.6.3.so Source checksums ---------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/uuid/1.2.13/uuid-1.2.13.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1af05fce9c2e3b2c6074f38e3dedf43abea9cf788270fab2df75a98d63383979 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1af05fce9c2e3b2c6074f38e3dedf43abea9cf788270fab2df75a98d63383979 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 974722 Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7lU6Ei94fj&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 984791] Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-conduit - Consume attoparsec parsers via conduit
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984791 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|Ready | Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thanks, Ben! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-attoparsec-conduit Short Description: Consume attoparsec parsers via conduit Owners: petersen Branches: f19 f18 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Elz8gV4f0G&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 984796] Review Request: ghc-cookie - HTTP cookie parsing and rendering
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984796 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|Ready | Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thank you for the review! (For the record the rpmlint is empty - dunno if "can't parse" above is a fedora-review bug?) New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-cookie Short Description: HTTP cookie parsing and rendering Owners: petersen Branches: f19 f18 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Xg6xwMpHhX&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 984791] Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-conduit - Consume attoparsec parsers via conduit
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984791 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. Note: Archive *.a files found in ghc-attoparsec-conduit-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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. Note: Documentation size is 143360 bytes in 17 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 %doc. [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 does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Packager: Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-attoparsec-conduit-1.0.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-attoparsec-conduit-devel-1.0.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-attoparsec-conduit-1.0.1.1-1.fc19.src.rpm ghc-attoparsec-conduit.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) parsers -> parser, parses, parers ghc-attoparsec-conduit.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers ghc-attoparsec-conduit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) parsers -> parser, parses, parers ghc-attoparsec-conduit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- ghc-attoparsec-conduit-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(attoparsec-conduit-1.0.1.1-9ebd2aef08bdb0f0a426581bb4950580) ghc-attoparsec-conduit(x86-64) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(attoparsec-0.10.4.0-d9fd97cfc1a1748b3cde35adf7fd233b) ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc-devel(conduit-1.0.3-ec7ca59ed34ff9b35dbcaf5ab02fcbd0) ghc-devel(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607) ghc-devel(transformers-0.3.0.0-387c76a892254b0b8fe4d66f4780ad17) ghc-attoparsec-conduit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(attoparsec-0.10.4.0-d9fd97cfc1a1748b3cde35adf7fd233b) ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc(conduit-1.0.3-ec7ca59ed34ff9b35dbcaf5ab02fcbd0) ghc(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607) ghc(transformers-0.3.0.0-387c76a892254b0b8fe4d66f4780ad17) libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSattoparsec-0.10.4.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-unicode-symbols-0.2.2.4-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.10.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSconduit-1.0.3-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSlifted-base-0.2.1.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSmonad-control-0.3.2.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSmtl-2.1.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSresourcet-0.4.6-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSsemigroups-0.8.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStext-0.11.3.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-base-0.4.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSvoid-0.5.11-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ghc-attoparsec-conduit-devel: ghc-attoparsec-conduit-devel ghc-attoparsec-conduit-devel(x86-64) ghc-devel(attoparsec-conduit-1.0.1.1-9ebd2aef08bdb0f0a426581bb4950580) ghc-attoparsec-conduit: ghc(attoparsec-conduit-1.0.1.1-9ebd2aef08bdb0f0a426581bb4950580) ghc-attoparsec-conduit ghc-attoparsec-conduit(x86-64) libHSattoparsec-conduit-1.0.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-attoparsec-conduit: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/attoparsec-conduit-1.0.1.1/libHSattoparsec-conduit-1.0.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so Source checksums ---------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/attoparsec-conduit/1.0.1.1/atto… : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 006afc8cf16d49daa75e6d707f060530a984f577182eedd5db7a3a208e2acd6c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 006afc8cf16d49daa75e6d707f060530a984f577182eedd5db7a3a208e2acd6c Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (b80cd0f) last change: 2013-07-09 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/home/boeckb/.local/bin/try-fedora-review -n ghc-attoparsec-conduit --no-build --cache --prebuilt --rpm-spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9vHwYPSOer&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 984796] Review Request: ghc-cookie - HTTP cookie parsing and rendering
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984796 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. Note: Archive *.a files found in ghc-cookie-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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. Note: Documentation size is 133120 bytes in 17 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 %doc. [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 does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Packager: Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-cookie-0.4.0.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-cookie-devel-0.4.0.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-cookie-0.4.0.1-1.fc19.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- ghc-cookie-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(cookie-0.4.0.1-51d90a838281d31d62356a911dafe97d) ghc-compiler ghc-cookie(x86-64) ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc-devel(blaze-builder-0.3.1.1-71a2ae53eb5daf9e6673db8b47b3b6b5) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc-devel(data-default-0.5.1-3dcf8b1e18d6ff182bcfe57129991c1d) ghc-devel(old-locale-1.0.0.5-6729cb9d9cc62d150655de8fc5401b91) ghc-devel(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607) ghc-devel(time-1.4.0.1-10dc4804a19dc0000fab79908f1a9f50) ghc-cookie (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc(blaze-builder-0.3.1.1-71a2ae53eb5daf9e6673db8b47b3b6b5) ghc(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc(data-default-0.5.1-3dcf8b1e18d6ff182bcfe57129991c1d) ghc(old-locale-1.0.0.5-6729cb9d9cc62d150655de8fc5401b91) ghc(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607) ghc(time-1.4.0.1-10dc4804a19dc0000fab79908f1a9f50) libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSblaze-builder-0.3.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.10.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdata-default-0.5.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdlist-0.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSold-locale-1.0.0.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStext-0.11.3.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ghc-cookie-devel: ghc-cookie-devel ghc-cookie-devel(x86-64) ghc-devel(cookie-0.4.0.1-51d90a838281d31d62356a911dafe97d) ghc-cookie: ghc(cookie-0.4.0.1-51d90a838281d31d62356a911dafe97d) ghc-cookie ghc-cookie(x86-64) libHScookie-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-cookie: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/cookie-0.4.0.1/libHScookie-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so Source checksums ---------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/cookie/0.4.0.1/cookie-0.4.0.1.t… : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 73967e5d4a0fe43248db582ace5f0f4cb8c7085748ea90e1dc312f3e137e6506 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 73967e5d4a0fe43248db582ace5f0f4cb8c7085748ea90e1dc312f3e137e6506 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (b80cd0f) last change: 2013-07-09 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/home/boeckb/.local/bin/try-fedora-review -n ghc-cookie --no-build --cache --prebuilt --rpm-spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IAIP0CMxMV&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 984800] Review Request: ghc-monad-logger - Monads for logging messages
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984800 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|Ready | Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thanks Ben New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-monad-logger Short Description: Monads for logging messages Owners: petersen Branches: f19 f18 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rIhsDETw7b&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 983901] Review Request: ghc-path-pieces - Components of paths
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983901 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|Ready | Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thanks Ben for the review. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-path-pieces Short Description: Components of paths library Owners: petersen Branches: f19 f18 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=6BMqp3DEkd&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 984791] Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-conduit - Consume attoparsec parsers via conduit
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984791 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=m5Q8Pd1pDE&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 984796] Review Request: ghc-cookie - HTTP cookie parsing and rendering
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984796 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9HU3EH7Lw9&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 984800] Review Request: ghc-monad-logger - Monads for logging messages
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984800 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. Note: Archive *.a files found in ghc-monad-logger-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages (from a koji scratch build) [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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [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. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 215040 bytes in 17 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 %doc. [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 does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Packager: Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock (koji). [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-monad-logger-0.3.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-monad-logger-devel-0.3.1.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-monad-logger-0.3.1.1-1.fc19.src.rpm ghc-monad-logger.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Monads -> Gonads, Mona's, Mon ads ghc-monad-logger.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell -> Haskell ghc-monad-logger.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Monads -> Gonads, Mona's, Mon ads ghc-monad-logger.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell -> Haskell 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- ghc-monad-logger-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(monad-logger-0.3.1.1-d563eacc1b0f4478cee85342b665eb6f) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc-devel(conduit-1.0.3-ec7ca59ed34ff9b35dbcaf5ab02fcbd0) ghc-devel(fast-logger-0.3.1-19d721f19bdb4de8c4c44a968bd17329) ghc-devel(monad-control-0.3.2.1-ae94ebee0db8b67fe098e79cdb997ef6) ghc-devel(mtl-2.1.2-82086cac9073862cbe01e44b81ec8b9b) ghc-devel(resourcet-0.4.6-8296622f1d6e2f65b1154a5d5c64a0b9) ghc-devel(template-haskell-2.8.0.0-a3012803fde1dc362e555b35a1a78e6d) ghc-devel(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607) ghc-devel(transformers-0.3.0.0-387c76a892254b0b8fe4d66f4780ad17) ghc-devel(transformers-base-0.4.1-c94ebf0095acdcb87db8d034e3e92265) ghc-monad-logger(x86-64) ghc-monad-logger (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc(conduit-1.0.3-ec7ca59ed34ff9b35dbcaf5ab02fcbd0) ghc(fast-logger-0.3.1-19d721f19bdb4de8c4c44a968bd17329) ghc(monad-control-0.3.2.1-ae94ebee0db8b67fe098e79cdb997ef6) ghc(mtl-2.1.2-82086cac9073862cbe01e44b81ec8b9b) ghc(resourcet-0.4.6-8296622f1d6e2f65b1154a5d5c64a0b9) ghc(template-haskell-2.8.0.0-a3012803fde1dc362e555b35a1a78e6d) ghc(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607) ghc(transformers-0.3.0.0-387c76a892254b0b8fe4d66f4780ad17) ghc(transformers-base-0.4.1-c94ebf0095acdcb87db8d034e3e92265) libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-unicode-symbols-0.2.2.4-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSblaze-builder-0.3.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.10.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSconduit-1.0.3-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdate-cache-0.3.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdirectory-1.2.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSfast-logger-0.3.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSfilepath-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSlifted-base-0.2.1.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSmonad-control-0.3.2.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSmtl-2.1.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSold-locale-1.0.0.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSold-time-1.1.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSpretty-1.1.1.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSresourcet-0.4.6-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSsemigroups-0.8.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStemplate-haskell-2.8.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStext-0.11.3.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-base-0.4.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSunix-2.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSunix-time-0.1.8-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSvoid-0.5.11-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libutil.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ghc-monad-logger-devel: ghc-devel(monad-logger-0.3.1.1-d563eacc1b0f4478cee85342b665eb6f) ghc-monad-logger-devel ghc-monad-logger-devel(x86-64) ghc-monad-logger: ghc(monad-logger-0.3.1.1-d563eacc1b0f4478cee85342b665eb6f) ghc-monad-logger ghc-monad-logger(x86-64) libHSmonad-logger-0.3.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-monad-logger: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/monad-logger-0.3.1.1/libHSmonad-logger-0.3.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so Source checksums ---------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/monad-logger/0.3.1.1/monad-logg… : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a66f3b938aaa4ae07849cef5df27e17056d0708a6be6e36fa94e36cfa8ab1887 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a66f3b938aaa4ae07849cef5df27e17056d0708a6be6e36fa94e36cfa8ab1887 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (b80cd0f) last change: 2013-07-09 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/home/boeckb/.local/bin/try-fedora-review -n ghc-monad-logger --no-build --cache --prebuilt --rpm-spec -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=KMtHJCexRs&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 984796] Review Request: ghc-cookie - HTTP cookie parsing and rendering
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984796 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mathstuf(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mathstuf(a)gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=EceURywuWB&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 984791] Review Request: ghc-attoparsec-conduit - Consume attoparsec parsers via conduit
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984791 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mathstuf(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mathstuf(a)gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Us1nKXAaqG&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 984800] Review Request: ghc-monad-logger - Monads for logging messages
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=984800 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mathstuf(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mathstuf(a)gmail.com -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gZjDZZnqGa&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 983901] Review Request: ghc-path-pieces - Components of paths
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983901 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. Note: Archive *.a files found in ghc-path-pieces-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries ===== 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]: %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. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 102400 bytes in 17 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file Note: Found : Packager: Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> (fedora-review bug?) [-]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-path-pieces-0.1.2-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm ghc-path-pieces-devel-0.1.2-1.fc19.x86_64.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ghc-path-pieces-devel ghc-path-pieces 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ghc-path-pieces-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(path-pieces-0.1.2-70ae946740222a12e48dbbe95189379e) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc-devel(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607) ghc-devel(time-1.4.0.1-10dc4804a19dc0000fab79908f1a9f50) ghc-path-pieces(x86-64) ghc-path-pieces (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc(text-0.11.3.1-e38859e86485c167fa7c9441789e7607) ghc(time-1.4.0.1-10dc4804a19dc0000fab79908f1a9f50) libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.10.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSold-locale-1.0.0.5-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStext-0.11.3.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStime-1.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ghc-path-pieces-devel: ghc-devel(path-pieces-0.1.2-70ae946740222a12e48dbbe95189379e) ghc-path-pieces-devel ghc-path-pieces-devel(x86-64) ghc-path-pieces: ghc(path-pieces-0.1.2-70ae946740222a12e48dbbe95189379e) ghc-path-pieces ghc-path-pieces(x86-64) libHSpath-pieces-0.1.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-path-pieces: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/path-pieces-0.1.2/libHSpath-pieces-0.1.2-ghc7.6.3.so Source checksums ---------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/path-pieces/0.1.2/path-pieces-0… : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4aada5c3651017f28f0f9676f9b79868aba8b23dc1991d0d7252b8802952bab3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4aada5c3651017f28f0f9676f9b79868aba8b23dc1991d0d7252b8802952bab3 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --bug 983901 --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=xkGRTLwfS4&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 982182] Review Request: ghc-concatenative - A library for postfix control flow
by Red Hat Bugzilla 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982182 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |petersen(a)redhat.com Whiteboard|Ready | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Basically looks fine to me. My only suggestion would be change "haskell" to "Haskell" perhaps in the %description. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. Note: Archive *.a files found in ghc-concatenative-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries This is expected for Fedora Haskell libraries. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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]: %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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. 2 clause BSD [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 194560 bytes in 17 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-concatenative-1.0.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-concatenative-devel-1.0.1-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-concatenative.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) postfix -> post fix, post-fix, postbox ghc-concatenative.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell -> Haskell ghc-concatenative.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US combinators -> combinations, combination, contaminators ghc-concatenative.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postfix -> post fix, post-fix, postbox ghc-concatenative.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ghc-concatenative-devel ghc-concatenative ghc-concatenative.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) postfix -> post fix, post-fix, postbox ghc-concatenative.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US haskell -> Haskell ghc-concatenative.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US combinators -> combinations, combination, contaminators ghc-concatenative.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US postfix -> post fix, post-fix, postbox ghc-concatenative.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ghc-concatenative-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(concatenative-1.0.1-5dce5049725b738d52e82db5ed7e2fcd) ghc-compiler ghc-concatenative(x86-64) ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc-devel(template-haskell-2.8.0.0-a3012803fde1dc362e555b35a1a78e6d) ghc-concatenative (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc(template-haskell-2.8.0.0-a3012803fde1dc362e555b35a1a78e6d) libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSpretty-1.1.1.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStemplate-haskell-2.8.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ghc-concatenative-devel: ghc-concatenative-devel ghc-concatenative-devel(x86-64) ghc-devel(concatenative-1.0.1-5dce5049725b738d52e82db5ed7e2fcd) ghc-concatenative: ghc(concatenative-1.0.1-5dce5049725b738d52e82db5ed7e2fcd) ghc-concatenative ghc-concatenative(x86-64) libHSconcatenative-1.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-concatenative: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/concatenative-1.0.1/libHSconcatenative-1.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so Source checksums ---------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/concatenative/1.0.1/concatenati… : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ed5997924518f0ca6b8afcd4e1ee10d30675bb4c4ba164a4d70b4ddbd8c6bc17 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ed5997924518f0ca6b8afcd4e1ee10d30675bb4c4ba164a4d70b4ddbd8c6bc17 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 982182 Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=BVh166dpFG&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 962252] Review Request: ghc-dbus - Haskell client library for the D-Bus IPC system
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962252 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |ghc-dbus -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=w2p91UNi2U&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 962251] Review Request: ghc-libxml-sax - Haskell bindings for the libxml2 SAX interface
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962251 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alias| |ghc-libxml-sax -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=nYQfozenoF&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 962251] Review Request: ghc-libxml-sax - Haskell bindings for the libxml2 SAX interface
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962251 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |Ready --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thanks (In reply to Dan Callaghan from comment #4) > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Haskell > > seems to be out of date since it refers only to cabal2spec, not cabal-rpm, > and it doesn't mention the %ghc_lib_build and %ghc_lib_install macros which > cabal-rpm has generated... Right - the new version (already approved by FPC) is https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell but we're still waiting for the Wiki to be updated unfortunately. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=8F8E0kvnWK&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 980123] Review Request: ghc-libffi - A binding to libffi
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980123 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ghc-libffi-0.1-2.fc18 |ghc-libffi-0.1-2.fc19 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-libffi-0.1-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2F6XWqi7mp&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 974721] Review Request: ghc-maccatcher - Obtain the host MAC address on *NIX and Windows
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974721 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ghc-maccatcher-2.1.5-1.fc19 |ghc-maccatcher-2.1.5-1.fc18 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-maccatcher-2.1.5-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=j3l5kAZ2jr&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 947819] Review Request: idris - Functional Programming Language with Dependent Types
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947819 Bug 947819 depends on bug 980123, which changed state. Bug 980123 Summary: Review Request: ghc-libffi - A binding to libffi https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980123 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=7rmR5F6Mpm&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 980123] Review Request: ghc-libffi - A binding to libffi
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980123 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |ghc-libffi-0.1-2.fc18 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-07-16 23:05:33 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-libffi-0.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=rpP31Luzz4&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 980133] Review Request: ghc-language-java - Java source manipulation
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980133 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|ghc-language-java-0.2.4-2.f |ghc-language-java-0.2.4-2.f |c18 |c19 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-language-java-0.2.4-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=c3XXhuiTQ3&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 947819] Review Request: idris - Functional Programming Language with Dependent Types
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947819 Bug 947819 depends on bug 980133, which changed state. Bug 980133 Summary: Review Request: ghc-language-java - Java source manipulation https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980133 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wqNGLajKUm&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 980133] Review Request: ghc-language-java - Java source manipulation
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=980133 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |ghc-language-java-0.2.4-2.f | |c18 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-07-16 23:00:58 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-language-java-0.2.4-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=87udvL72u6&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 974722] Review Request: ghc-uuid - For creating, comparing, parsing and printing Universally Unique Identifiers
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974722 Bug 974722 depends on bug 974721, which changed state. Bug 974721 Summary: Review Request: ghc-maccatcher - Obtain the host MAC address on *NIX and Windows https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974721 What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QXKSZ3KVWZ&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 974721] Review Request: ghc-maccatcher - Obtain the host MAC address on *NIX and Windows
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=974721 Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |ghc-maccatcher-2.1.5-1.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-07-16 22:59:27 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System <updates(a)fedoraproject.org> --- ghc-maccatcher-2.1.5-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zb0HIGGzIs&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 947819] Review Request: idris - Functional Programming Language with Dependent Types
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947819 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED --- Comment #19 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- idris-0.9.8-3.fc20 has been built for rawhide. I will build it soonish for F19 and earlier. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=codOSd7VBy&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 983901] Review Request: ghc-path-pieces - Components of paths
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=983901 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mathstuf(a)gmail.com Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mathstuf(a)gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=GvEiKfE0WS&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 962252] Review Request: ghc-dbus - Haskell client library for the D-Bus IPC system
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962252 Dan Callaghan <dcallagh(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|notready | --- Comment #2 from Dan Callaghan <dcallagh(a)redhat.com> --- Updated using cabal-rpm 0.8.2: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/ghc-dbus/ghc-dbus.spec http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/ghc-dbus/ghc-dbus-0.10.4-2.fc20.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Jg5B8UeVl3&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 962251] Review Request: ghc-libxml-sax - Haskell bindings for the libxml2 SAX interface
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962251 Dan Callaghan <dcallagh(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard|notready | --- Comment #5 from Dan Callaghan <dcallagh(a)redhat.com> --- Updated using cabal-rpm 0.8.2: http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/ghc-dbus/ghc-libxml-sax.spec http://fedorapeople.org/~dcallagh/ghc-dbus/ghc-libxml-sax-0.7.4-2.fc20.src.… -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9TrLf5d4Xh&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 962251] Review Request: ghc-libxml-sax - Haskell bindings for the libxml2 SAX interface
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962251 --- Comment #4 from Dan Callaghan <dcallagh(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #2) > Right, I am afraid it needs to be updated this using latest cabal-rpm > to follow the newly approved Haskell Packaging Guidelines. Where are the latest guidelines? This page: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Haskell seems to be out of date since it refers only to cabal2spec, not cabal-rpm, and it doesn't mention the %ghc_lib_build and %ghc_lib_install macros which cabal-rpm has generated... -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kXCLVRzFGu&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 962251] Review Request: ghc-libxml-sax - Haskell bindings for the libxml2 SAX interface
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=962251 --- Comment #3 from Dan Callaghan <dcallagh(a)redhat.com> --- (In reply to Jens Petersen from comment #2) > Also there is no need to remove the comments created by cabal-rpm. :) Well, I cleaned out some comments/whitespace because I figured I would be maintaining the spec by hand, since cabal-rpm got the description, summary, and BuildRequires wrong. Is there a better way? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=P3SkNsHICk&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 630303] Review Request: yesod - Creation of type-safe, RESTful web applications
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=630303 Ben Boeckel <mathstuf(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |985082 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=9dSMVgh393&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 982186] Review Request: ghc-language-javascript - Parser for JavaScript
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982186 --- Comment #3 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Use haskell-sig, not haskell-devel. Corrected. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=13FRSFc3k0&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 982186] Review Request: ghc-language-javascript - Parser for JavaScript
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982186 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gnGj83e8EL&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 947819] Review Request: idris - Functional Programming Language with Dependent Types
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947819 --- Comment #18 from Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=iPPVUBuCUR&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 947819] Review Request: idris - Functional Programming Language with Dependent Types
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947819 Jon Ciesla <limburgher(a)gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=zxCGhyKOcV&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 982186] Review Request: ghc-language-javascript - Parser for JavaScript
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982186 Ricky Elrod <relrod(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #2 from Ricky Elrod <relrod(a)redhat.com> --- Thanks, Jens! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ghc-language-javascript Short Description: Parser for JavaScript Owners: codeblock Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC: haskell-devel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lPcZ7cFhHM&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 982186] Review Request: ghc-language-javascript - Parser for JavaScript
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982186 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |petersen(a)redhat.com Whiteboard|Ready | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- One minor comment: I think the Note in the description could dropped. Otherwise looks fine to me. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Static libraries in -static subpackage, if present. Note: Archive *.a files found in ghc-language-javascript-devel See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#StaticLibraries Allowed for Fedora Haskell ghc libraries. - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 2744320 bytes in 63 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation Strictly it could possibly be subpackaged (some of the hscolour generated source html files are quite large but still not that large compared to the whole devel subpackage. (Also the macros currently don't support doc subpackaging.) ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [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]: 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]: %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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package complies to the 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". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/petersen/pkgreview/982186-ghc-language- javascript/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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). ===== 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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 2795520 bytes in /usr/share 2785280 ghc-language-javascript-devel-0.5.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm 10240 ghc-language- javascript-0.5.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ghc-language-javascript-0.5.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-language-javascript-devel-0.5.7-1.fc20.x86_64.rpm ghc-language-javascript.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end ghc-language-javascript.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hjsmin -> Jasmine 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint ghc-language-javascript-devel ghc-language-javascript ghc-language-javascript.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US frontend -> fronted, front end, front-end ghc-language-javascript.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hjsmin -> Jasmine 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- ghc-language-javascript-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ghc(language-javascript-0.5.7-2cde2ae46ab6f76d160438e24cb097a8) ghc-compiler ghc-devel(array-0.4.0.1-3b78425c10ff2dad7acf7e8c8ae014c3) ghc-devel(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc-devel(blaze-builder-0.3.1.1-71a2ae53eb5daf9e6673db8b47b3b6b5) ghc-devel(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc-devel(containers-0.5.0.0-ab1dae9a94cd3cc84e7b2805636ebfa2) ghc-devel(mtl-2.1.2-82086cac9073862cbe01e44b81ec8b9b) ghc-devel(utf8-light-0.4.0.1-0eaeca9465503ce57029cc9752e18fa8) ghc-devel(utf8-string-0.3.7-26a8ed8ca48fe809983bde6faca943a9) ghc-language-javascript(x86-64) ghc-language-javascript (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): ghc(array-0.4.0.1-3b78425c10ff2dad7acf7e8c8ae014c3) ghc(base-4.6.0.1-8aa5d403c45ea59dcd2c39f123e27d57) ghc(blaze-builder-0.3.1.1-71a2ae53eb5daf9e6673db8b47b3b6b5) ghc(bytestring-0.10.0.2-4f93248f75667c2c3321a7a6761b576f) ghc(containers-0.5.0.0-ab1dae9a94cd3cc84e7b2805636ebfa2) ghc(mtl-2.1.2-82086cac9073862cbe01e44b81ec8b9b) ghc(utf8-light-0.4.0.1-0eaeca9465503ce57029cc9752e18fa8) ghc(utf8-string-0.3.7-26a8ed8ca48fe809983bde6faca943a9) libHSarray-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbase-4.6.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSblaze-builder-0.3.1.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSbytestring-0.10.0.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHScontainers-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSdeepseq-1.3.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSghc-prim-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSinteger-gmp-0.5.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSmtl-2.1.2-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStext-0.11.3.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHStransformers-0.3.0.0-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSutf8-light-0.4.0.1-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libHSutf8-string-0.3.7-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgmp.so.10()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) Provides -------- ghc-language-javascript-devel: ghc-devel(language-javascript-0.5.7-2cde2ae46ab6f76d160438e24cb097a8) ghc-language-javascript-devel ghc-language-javascript-devel(x86-64) ghc-language-javascript: ghc(language-javascript-0.5.7-2cde2ae46ab6f76d160438e24cb097a8) ghc-language-javascript ghc-language-javascript(x86-64) libHSlanguage-javascript-0.5.7-ghc7.6.3.so()(64bit) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ghc-language-javascript: /usr/lib64/ghc-7.6.3/language-javascript-0.5.7/libHSlanguage-javascript-0.5.7-ghc7.6.3.so Source checksums ---------------- http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/language-javascript/0.5.7/langu… : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a3a9924a212d28afa06ce97a9d52d6352da852549b89f44efd5ecd8e17f8cd56 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a3a9924a212d28afa06ce97a9d52d6352da852549b89f44efd5ecd8e17f8cd56 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 982186 Package is APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=RPVGzeWtzK&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 947819] Review Request: idris - Functional Programming Language with Dependent Types
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947819 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Whiteboard|Ready | Flags| |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #17 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Thank you for the review. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: idris Short Description: Functional programming language with dependent types Owners: petersen Branches: f19 f18 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=CXGRtpZQdz&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 982186] Review Request: ghc-language-javascript - Parser for JavaScript
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=982186 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whiteboard| |Ready -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=JSyXwHBn6z&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 947819] Review Request: idris - Functional Programming Language with Dependent Types
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947819 Ricky Elrod <relrod(a)redhat.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #16 from Ricky Elrod <relrod(a)redhat.com> --- I think this looks good now. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=IsFIQUfDK7&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

[Bug 947819] Review Request: idris - Functional Programming Language with Dependent Types
by Red Hat Bugzilla 16 Jul '13

16 Jul '13

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=947819 --- Comment #15 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> --- Ricky, anything more left here? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Eki1hk4RNQ&a=cc_unsubscribe

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel July 2013