Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/X11-extras.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/X11-extras-0.4-1.tillf7.src.rpm Description: Missing bindings to the X11 graphics library.
Shouldn't this be called haskell-X11-extras? The X11-extras is awfully badly chosen and too generic!
(In reply to comment #1) > Shouldn't this be called haskell-X11-extras? The X11-extras is > awfully badly chosen and too generic! Maybe, but the packages this spec produces use ghc prefixes, so this may be only a problem in CVS, but when the there is a guideline for naming Haskell libraries, then this can be changed without the need of a rebuild. Using haskell as prefix for the packages is not good, because there are different incompatible haskell compilers. Using ghc-X11-extras for the spec may be a solution, but then in case it should contain also other subpackages for other compilers, it would not be good. If you demand a specific name for this package to finish review, then I would prefer to rename it to ghc-X11-extras.
I proposed that name for consistency with perl or python, but I don't have the slightest idea about what is haskell. I can, however, see when a package has a generic naming although it is a binding...
Here is a spec with the ghc prefix. This spec also uses %ghost in %files instead of rm in %preun Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-X11-extras.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-X11-extras-0.4-2.tillf7.src.rpm Thinking about it a little more, this is my favourite naming. I hope that someone from the Haskell Sig noticed this review request (I added it to their wiki page), but I will cc them, if it seems, that it is needed. Maybe there will be some Haskell Guidelines, when the review of this package is finished.
Thanks for submitting X11-extras. :) I had been wanting to have in Fedora for a while. I Agree the ghc prefix makes sense here. Currently we don't have any other Haskell compilers in Fedora, though we do have hugs98 (an interpreter) and there could be libraries packaged for it too. The first library we have (had for a while) is gtk2hs for ghc, but I expect there will surely be more coming. Yes, we need packaging guidelines for Haskell, and I'd like to see this review as a rehearsal to make a draft for that. :)
Build fails for me with the following: + runhaskell Setup.lhs copy --destdir=/home/builder/packages/tmp/ghc-X11-extras-0.4-2.fc8-root-builder Installing: /home/builder/packages/tmp/ghc-X11-extras-0.4-2.fc8-root-builder/usr/lib64/X11-extras-0.4/ghc-6.8.1 + install .installed-pkg-config /home/builder/packages/tmp/ghc-X11-extras-0.4-2.fc8-root-builder/usr/lib64/X11-extras-0.4/ghc-6.8.1/X11-extras.pkg install: cannot stat `.installed-pkg-config': No such file or directory erreur: Mauvais status de sortie pour /home/builder/packages/tmp/rpm-tmp.2795 (%install)
Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-X11-extras.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-X11-extras-0.4-3.tillf7.src.rpm Here is a new spec that builds on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=239095 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=239091 I needed to change the way %ghcver was defined because otherwise koji complained about a multiple define package, because it tested %description before the BRs were fulfilled. (In reply to comment #6) > Build fails for me with the following: > > + runhaskell Setup.lhs copy > --destdir=/home/builder/packages/tmp/ghc-X11-extras-0.4-2.fc8-root-builder > Installing: > /home/builder/packages/tmp/ghc-X11-extras-0.4-2.fc8-root-builder/usr/lib64/X11-extras-0.4/ghc-6.8.1 > + install .installed-pkg-config > /home/builder/packages/tmp/ghc-X11-extras-0.4-2.fc8-root-builder/usr/lib64/X11-extras-0.4/ghc-6.8.1/X11-extras.pkg > install: cannot stat `.installed-pkg-config': No such file or directory > erreur: Mauvais status de sortie pour /home/builder/packages/tmp/rpm-tmp.2795 > (%install) How did you build it? I do not know, why .installed-pkg-config is not there. Is it maybe somewhere else or is there a similiar file in the source directory?
Using ghc-6.8.1 from updates-testing, just with rpmbuild. Something is broken with the way RPM parses macros, by the way, and it's happening here: your commented-out #%define ghc_version in line 2 actually shadows the automatic detection in line 1 (occured to me in the past when trying to comment out %configure in other packages) Deleting line 2 (or just deleting the %) lets the build proceed, but fails the same way as before -- .installed-pkg-config not found.
Spec URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-X11-extras.spec SRPM URL: http://till.fedorapeople.org/review/ghc-X11-extras-0.4-4.tillf7.src.rpm Here is a new spec that builds on koji: F8: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=259984 F9: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=259983 The installed-pkg-config is at a different location when using the newer version of ghc (or cabal)
Running rpmlint on the packages built from ghc-X11-extras-0.4-4.tillf7.src.rpm: ghc681-X11-extras.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/X11-extras-0.4/ghc-6.8.1/libHSX11-extras-0.4.a ghc681-X11-extras.i386: E: script-without-shebang /usr/lib/X11-extras-0.4/ghc-6.8.1/X11-extras.pkg ghc681-X11-extras.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/lib/X11-extras-0.4/ghc-6.8.1/include/XlibExtras.h ghc-X11-extras.i386: W: no-documentation ghc-X11-extras.i386: E: no-binary
(In reply to comment #10) > ghc681-X11-extras.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib/X11-extras-0.4/ghc-6.8.1/libHSX11-extras-0.4.a The complete package is a haskell devel package afaik. > ghc681-X11-extras.i386: E: script-without-shebang > /usr/lib/X11-extras-0.4/ghc-6.8.1/X11-extras.pkg Is this file executable? I will check this later. > ghc681-X11-extras.i386: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package > /usr/lib/X11-extras-0.4/ghc-6.8.1/include/XlibExtras.h see above. > ghc-X11-extras.i386: W: no-documentation > ghc-X11-extras.i386: E: no-binary This is also intended, because the package is only there to make it easier to get the latest package. Nevertheless, it seem that ghc-X11-extras is not needed anymore, at least the latest release of xmonad does not need it, but a newer version of "ghc-X11", but I need to do some more research here - or does someone else know more about this?
Sorry for neglecting this review too long... (In reply to comment #11) > Nevertheless, it seem that ghc-X11-extras is not needed anymore, at least the > latest release of xmonad does not need it, but a newer version of "ghc-X11", > but I need to do some more research here Right I just noticed this myself. I didn't search the haskell mailing-lists but I see: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=464004 I think it would be good and straightforward to update your package to X11 instead since ghc-6.8.2 no longer seems to ship X11.
Ah nevermind I see ghc-X11 in bug 426751. So I think this bug can be closed.