[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Need review: ghc



On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 18:43 +0200, Jochen Schmitt wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 17:46:26 +0900, you wrote:
> 
> >After reviewing, the remaining issue is just bootstrapping
> >because ghc-6.4-8 requires ghc64 (its main subpackage) to build.
> >Generating (arch dependent) bootstrap tarballs of C files
> >with ghc would depend on ghc anyway so the recommended way
> >to buildstrap ghc in buildroots is using such a pre-built binary
> >package: indeed the Debian maintainer tells me this is also
> >the way new archs are bootstrapped for debian.
> >
> >Signed binary packages for Fedora Core i386, ppc and x86_64 are
> >available from Fedora Haskell <http://haskell.org/fedora/>:
> >
> >http://haskell.org/fedora/haskell/3/i386/RPMS.stable/ghc64-6.4-7.i386.rpm
> >http://haskell.org/fedora/haskell/3/ppc/RPMS.stable/ghc64-6.4-1.ppc.rpm
> >http://haskell.org/fedora/haskell/3/x86_64/RPMS.stable/ghc64-6.4-7.x86_64.rpm
> >
> >and can be used for the initial builds.
> 
> Special question?
> 
> Does the build system able to handle such a situation, that a
> package need itself as a buildrequirement?
> 
> Best Regards:
> 
a package cannot require itself.

that makes no sense at all.

-sv



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]