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=517144
Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #11 from Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com 2009-08-31 23:20:53 EDT --- Anyway thanks for picking up the haskell-platform - I hadn't been following and it is starting to make sense now.
(In reply to comment #8)
Are they the same version?
Good question - sure we need to keep the package in sync with haskell-platform.
Personally, i'd rather deliver as many libraries via subpackages anyways.
Hmm, well I thought about this too - weighing the effort of separate packages with the complexity of haskell-platform subpackages. Anyway we seems to have started going down the separate package path which which should be good and fine as long as we are careful to preserve version: I'll add a comment about haskell-platform in the spec file and suggest we do the same for all packages that form a part of Platform.
(In reply to comment #9)
Is the tarball from hackage then? Some of the tarballs Bryan used came from the platform tarball and for some reason did not checksum properly. It was the only problem we found, and for the matter of speed, i let it slide, as the reviewer.
That is a no-no really - either we use the hackage packages or the haskell-platform tarball I don't think we should mix them - presumably all haskell-platform packages are available as separate tarballs since haskell-platform also is distributed without them.
haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org