Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537979
--- Comment #20 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2010-02-02 04:55:28 EST --- (In reply to comment #19)
Thanks for the info, but I don't see common_summary or common_description used there.
Which version of ghc-rpm-macros are you looking at?
Other warnings/error are false positives, but still rpmlint is part of a review and the rpmlint output should be posted.
Agreed
The package is for rawhide and requires ghc-6.12.1 it will [not] build in f12 without latest ghc and ghc-rpm-macros.
Then it should have proper versioned BuildRequires. The version numbers may only be omitted, if all supported Fedora releases satisfy the versions.
ghc-rpm-macros BR is versioned: later I may want to backport the package to F12 with updated macros there - then a ghc version would be unnecesary. ie the latest macros assume ghc-6.12.1 not the package itself per se. I suppose ghc-rpm-macros could have a requires on ghc but I was trying to avoid that I think.
I just wanted to test if the package builds in mock, and currently 0.3.9 does not: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1955760
You're right, it seems I made a mistake and didn't upload the actual package that scratch-built in koji... :(
I uploaded http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/ghc-hashed-storage/final/ghc-hashed-storage... which I believe was the correct package and also what I imported to cvs. I hope that might satisfy your curiosity. :)
Honesty I am very busy at work right and don't really have time for a review inquisition but if you feel great malpractice and incompetence took place here you can reopen.
I think we got absorbed in the license question and then Lozenzo forgot to confirm that that package builds, but it was fixed anyway before importing so not a big deal IMHO.
haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org