[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc19 |ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.el7 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc20 |ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc19 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc21 |ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc20 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-09-27 05:58:29 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 --- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.el7 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ghc-http-date-0.0.4-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 --- Comment #4 from Jens Petersen --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Jens Petersen --- Thanks for the review New Package SCM Request === Package Name: ghc-http-date Short Description: HTTP Date parser and formatter Upstream URL: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/http-date Owners: petersen codeblock Branches: f21 f20 f19 epel7 el6 InitialCC: haskell-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906
Ricky Elrod changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rel...@redhat.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rel...@redhat.com
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Ricky Elrod ---
APPROVED.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[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]: 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. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 153600 bytes in 21 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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).
[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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[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]: 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
Haskell:
[x]: This should never happen
...but it did. ;)
= 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.
[-]: 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 ca
[Bug 1135906] Review Request: ghc-http-date - HTTP Date parser and formatter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135906 Jens Petersen changed: What|Removed |Added CC||haskell-devel@lists.fedorap ||roject.org Blocks||976980 Whiteboard||ready --- Comment #1 from Jens Petersen --- Built on koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7497810 Needs for recent warp. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976980 [Bug 976980] ghc-warp-3.0.1.1 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
