Bug 471003

This requires ghc-zlib and ghc-HTTP which are currently under review.

I think the dependencies are backwards.  Does this block ghc-zlib or is it the other way around?

Oops thanks - made this depend on ghc-zlib and ghc-HTTP reviews.

Dependencies are now in rawhide.

Updating package for latest packaging macros.

Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/cabal-install/cabal-install.spec
SRPM URL:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/cabal-install/cabal-install-0.6.0-2.fc10.src.rpm
(please ignore the disttag - requires ghc in rawhide to build currently)

ping anyone? :)

It would be really good to get this into F11 - it is the "rubygems" of the Haskell world. :)

I rebuilt (updated) ghc-zlib - so that it installs correctly and this should actually build again now on rawhide (oops!):

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1115148

As soon as ghc-6.10.1 has been pushed to f10-updates I will build ghc-zlib and ghc-HTTP there too.


Spec URL: http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/cabal-install/cabal-install.spec
SRPM URL:
http://petersen.fedorapeople.org/cabal-install/cabal-install-0.6.0-3.fc10.src.rpm

(just fixed the URL field)

I tried building the above SRPM on F10 using the following packages:

ghc-6.10.1-8.fc11.i386
ghc-zlib-0.5.0.0-5.fc11.i386
ghc-HTTP-3001.1.5-1.fc11.i386

The build failed per the attachment.

Created attachment 331608 [details]
Log of failed build attempt

Failed build.

The .spec file in comment 6 does not use %cabal_build: you trying another older package perhaps?

Here's my review.

#  MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package.

  srpm is clean, binary rpm reports these:

  cabal-install.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/cabal
  cabal-install.x86_64: W: executable-stack /usr/bin/cabal

  These are both acceptable.

# MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.

OK.

# MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.

OK.

# MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.

OK.

# MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license [...]

BSD3 == OK.

# MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match [...]

OK.

# MUST: license(s) in %doc.

OK.

# MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.

OK.

# MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

OK.

# MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream [...]

OK.

# MUST: successfully compile and build [...]

OK.

# MUST: architectures in ExcludeArch.

OK.

# MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires [...]

OK.

# MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.

OK.

# MUST: shared library ldconfig

NA.

# MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable [...]

NA.

# MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.

OK.

# MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.

OK.

# MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.

OK.

# MUST: Each package must have a %clean section [...]

OK.

# MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.

OK.

# MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.

OK.

# MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.

NA.

# MUST: %doc must not affect runtime

OK.

# MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.

NA.

# MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.

Exempt.

# MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files [...]

NA.

# MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix [...]

NA.

# MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages [...]

NA.

# MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives [...]

NA.

# MUST: Packages containing GUI applications [...]

NA.

# MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned [...]

NA.

# MUST: %install rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).

OK.

# MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

OK.

# SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text [...]

NA.

# SHOULD: description and summary translations

No.

# SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

OK.

# SHOULD: binary rpms on all supported architectures.

Tested x86_64 and i386.

# SHOULD: functions as described

OK.

# SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.

OK.

# SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel [...]

NA.

# SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files [...]

NA.

# SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of [...]

This package is APPROVED.

Thanks, Bryan, for reviewing.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: cabal-install
Short Description: Haskell package (hackage) tool
Owners: petersen
Branches: F-10
InitialCC:  haskell-sig

cvs done.

Package imported and built.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: cabal-install
New Branches: el6
Owners: petersen
InitialCC: haskell-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: cabal-install
New Branches: el5
Owners: petersen
InitialCC: haskell-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).