[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=425882
Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |NEW
AssignedTo|tibbs(a)math.uh.edu |nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #21 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-10-22 23:07:00 EDT ---
I just pushed ghc-6.8.3-9.fc10 to koji so this package review should be able to
proceed from rawhide soon. Note that I added a new macro pkg_docdir so that
should take care of tibbs' comment on hsc_name (I have been working to get rid
of the latter macro).
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc
by Red Hat Bugzilla
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=425882
Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |tibbs(a)math.uh.edu
Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> 2008-10-22 15:37:12 EDT ---
Finally.
This is the first one of these I've seen being done, so I'll have a few
probably obvious questions.
First off, why the hsc_name macro? Or rather, why go to the trouble of
defining it to "ghc" only to use "ghc" explicitly later? Wouldn't it be
simpler just to not use the macro at all?
If you build a package against ghc-zlib, will it be required at runtime? I
guess what's confusing me is all the talk of static linking, and yet the .a
file is packaged, which implies that this is really some sort of -devel package
needed at compile time. Is there no kind of runtime/-devel split of these
packages?
There's no reason to include the LICENSE file twice, is there?
Otherwise the %ghc_* macros hide all of the complexity nicely. I'm not sure
I'd know how to find a test suite if one were included, so I can't really check
that. With some good answers to the above questions I don't see any reason
this wouldn't pass review.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
15 years, 6 months
Re: [Fedora-haskell-list] Re: Planning for the Haskell Platform ... and documentation
by Jens-Ulrik Petersen
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan
> > <bos(a)serpentine.com> wrote:
> >> To update the
> >> index, we simply build a big haddock command line, telling it where to find
> >> all the existing haddocks. I'll experiment and send out precise details.
> >
> > I presume we can just shove this in a macro, add it to the guidelines
> > as a requirement for any package with docs in haddock, and be done
> > with it?
Can we use haddock-2.0 for this with ghc-6.8.3 or should it be haddock-0.9 in that case?
Jens
15 years, 6 months