Created attachment 316227 [details] ghc-smallcheck-0.4-1.fc9.src.rpm Hackage-Category: Testing (8), Data (1) Data: 1. Stream - A library for manipulating infinite lists. SPEC: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/ghc-stream.spec SRPM: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/ghc-stream-0.2.6-1.fc9.src.rpm Testing: 1. benchpress - Micro-benchmarking with detailed statistics. SPEC: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/ghc-benchpress.spec SRPM: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/ghc-benchpress-0.2.2.1-1.fc9.src.rpm 2. ChasingBottoms - For testing partial and infinite values. SPEC: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/ghc-chasingbottoms.spec SRPM: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/ghc-chasingbottoms-1.2.4-1.fc9.src.rpm 3. HTF - The Haskell Test Framework SPEC: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/htf.spec SRPM: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/htf-0.1-1.fc9.src.rpm 4. IOSpec - A pure specification of the IO monad. SPEC: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/ghc-iospec.spec SRPM: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/ghc-iospec-0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm DEPENDS-ON: ghc-stream 5. lazysmallcheck - A library for demand-driven testing of Haskell programs SPEC: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/ghc-lazysmallcheck.spec SRPM: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/ghc-lazysmallcheck-0.3-1.fc9.src.rpm 6. pqc - Parallel batch driver for QuickCheck SPEC: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/ghc-pqc.spec SRPM: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/ghc-pqc-0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm 7. quickcheck-script - Automated test tool for QuickCheck. SPEC: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/quickcheck-script.spec SRPM: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/quickcheck-script-0.1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm 8. smallcheck - Another lightweight testing library in Haskell. SPEC: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/ghc-smallcheck.spec SRPM: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/ghc-smallcheck-0.4-1.fc9.src.rpm Additionally, compiled RPMS could be found under: x86_64: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/RPMS/x86_64/ i386: http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/RPMS/i386/ You would need the latest macros.ghc as found under: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460304 These were tested on a Fedora-8 machine, with GHC-6.8.3 installed. -Rajesh Krishnan.
Created attachment 316228 [details] ghc-stream-0.2.6-1.fc9.src.rpm
Created attachment 316229 [details] ghc-benchpress-0.2.2.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
Please file one review request bug per package.
Created attachment 316230 [details] ghc-chasingbottoms-1.2.4-1.fc9.src.rpm
Created attachment 316231 [details] htf-0.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
Created attachment 316232 [details] ghc-iospec-0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm
Created attachment 316233 [details] ghc-lazysmallcheck-0.3-1.fc9.src.rpm
Created attachment 316234 [details] ghc-pqc-0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm
Created attachment 316235 [details] quickcheck-script-0.1.1-1.fc9.src.rpm
Created attachment 316236 [details] ghc-smallcheck-0.4-1.fc9.src.rpm
Just wondering, is there any way to attach multiple files in one go, on this web-based Bugzilla interface? -Rajesh
Not again. Reviewers are in short supply, and the process simply cannot tolerate a huge number of improper requests being dumped onto it (again). In order for this to work at all: Please submit properly-formatted review requests using the template at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&format=extras-review Please submit a small and reasonable number of reviews at a time; five is a good number. Commentary gained from those reviews can be used to make succeeding packages better. Please upload the src.rpms and specs to some location and link to them in your review tickets. Attaching src.rpms and specs makes things inconvenient for the reviewers (which as stated above are in terribly short supply). If you do not have hosting, please say so and Fedora will arrange some for you. I am closing this ticket, and I may close other improperly formatted requests in the future. I apologize for being harsh, but I'm trying to keep some semblance of order in the review queue.
I suggest starting with one package. :)
No problem. At least this would be a placeholder for info and pointers on the above-mentioned Haskell packages for others who would come searching for them. I will resubmit those using the other URL. But I guess FedoraProject needs to streamline its user interfaces for package submissions. That other URL (extras-review submit page) has the following shortcomings (that I couldn't find it documented anywhere): 1. Doesn't allow for specifying CC list. 2. Doesn't allow for marking dependencies of submitted packages. That is, if I have 2 packages A and B, and A is a dependency for B, and I submit A first and then B, it is not possible to specify the ticket ID of A at the time of submitting B. And hey, don't throttle me down if you can't keep up with me! :-) FedoraProject may have its technical deficiencies and managerial bureaucracies, but not the developers who are capable of submitting the packages, or the end-users who would come here looking for those. It is important for Fedora management to understand that, and not place a gag-order the contributors, by specifying an upper limit of 1 or 5 or whatever number suits their fancy; despite all the time/resource/reviewer-crunch and other limitations we might have at the moment. -Rajesh Krishnan
(In reply to comment #14) > 1. Doesn't allow for specifying CC list. True, but you can CC fedora-haskell-list after opening the bug. > 2. Doesn't allow for marking dependencies of submitted packages. That is, if > I have 2 packages A and B, and A is a dependency for B, and I submit A first > and then B, it is not possible to specify the ticket ID of A at the time of > submitting B. Again you can mark dependencies after opening by making the review bugs block/depend on each other. > And hey, don't throttle me down if you can't keep up with me! :-) Ok, but please follow the package submission process and steps carefully, specially if you are seeking sponsorship. :) I think once you have gotten one package through, things should be much easier and smoother: hence my suggestion to start with a single package until you get the feel for the review process. :) Thank you for your contributions.