[Fedora-packaging] Re: [Fedora-haskell-list] Revised Haskell Guidelines 2008.08.13

Rajesh Krishnan fedora at krishnan.cc
Fri Aug 29 10:00:08 UTC 2008


> self-contained unlike some other distros.  Are we moving anyway from that?
>
> Also housing the macros in ghc means that if we need to change them then
> ghc needs to be rebuild which is a bit expensive - though hopefully that
> would be not necessary too often.

This thread is getting even more confusing. :-(  I think what Yaakov mentioned 
was that these macros would be used only for compiling Hackage/Cabal packages 
(and the like) and not for building the GHC compiler itself.  Right Yaakov?

For now I have decided to use a modified version of Yaakov's original 
macros.ghc file, and build a test package with it and submit it.  Will keep 
everyone updated in the following mails.

-Rajesh



On 2008-08-28-Thu 09:28:41 pm Jens Petersen wrote:
> (Late followup since I spent most of yesterday working on a cabal-rpm
> patch.)
>
> Yaakov Nemoy さんは書きました:
> >>> * %buildsubdir is not a common way of doing things
> >>> ** we need this macro in the install phase to get at the working dir
> >>> we used to compile the package.
> >>
> >> This is not haskell specific and should really not be needed.
> >> Let's try to get rid of it.
> >
> > It's needed for the macros that do file detection later on.  Once we
> > cd into the buildroot, we need a way of accessing the old dir we used
> > to compile the package.  Therefore, I've put it in a macro, and both
> > sets of macros are mandatory.  If you have a better solution, please
> > fix it.
>
> No it is not needed: you could use ${RPM_BUILD_DIR} for that if
> necessary (however see also the end of this mail).
>
> >> But how are packages supposed to get these macros?
> >> Surely each package is not going to include all of
> >> http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/haskell/macros.ghc ?
> >
> > That file is going to be packaged with ghc itself.  I've submitted the
> > following bug.
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460304
>
> Do any other packages (languages) in Fedora provide rpm macros?  One of
> the things I always liked about fedora is that our spec files are
> self-contained unlike some other distros.  Are we moving anyway from that?
>
> Also housing the macros in ghc means that if we need to change them then
> ghc needs to be rebuild which is a bit expensive - though hopefully that
> would be not necessary too often.
>
> >> The macros are not really that ghc specific: they should be prefixed
> >> cabal not ghc.
> >
> > Technically no, but I want to differentiate between what the
> > theoretical command might be for foo haskell compiler, and what
> > nuances there might be between compilers.
>
> I would prefer just a few macros suitable for cabal that would work
> across ghc, hugs, etc, than something very specific to ghc.
>
> >> IMHO some of it seems to be overkill.
> >
> > How so?  For the most part, i'm converting the work that Bryan has
> > done into macros, and polished it up.  Every step that's there is
> > stuff that Bryan has decided is necessary.
>
> I created some patches to cleanup cabal-rpm's output.  I wish you had
> made clear earlier that that was where all this was coming from... if I
> had known that I could have cleaned it up much earlier...
>
> As I noted yesterday: I finally tried cabal-rpm and finally realised
> where all those macros are coming from.  So sorry to Yaakov: it seems
> most of my quibbles have actually been with cabal-rpm! ;)
>
> I think I may submit a cabal-rpm package to fedora so that it can be
> included.
>
> IMHO a couple of self-contained spec templates are still quite
> sufficient for now and that is the way I am inclined to go.  Packaging
> cabal packages is really not that hard, and to me hiding small
> incantation in obscure macros really does not buy use much at all.  As
> long as packages follow the templates reviews should be just as
> straightforward.
>
> >> - if %ghc_autotools is necessary, can the -p option be made optional?
> >
> > What should the default be?
>
> Profiling by default?  I don't use profile much myself... what do others
> think?
>
> >> I attach an (untested) which cleans up the macro file a bit.
> >
> > I've attached that to the bug report to add them to GHC.
>
> Thanks.  There are still more changes that need to be made though.
>
>  > >> * this file detection stuff is scary
>  > >> ** I've put it into a series of macros and documented it
>  >
>  > Ok, that might be useful. :)
>
> Has anyone other than me tested them though?  The filelist macros in the
> ghc-X11 review do not work for me, and they seem to be the same as in
> the current macros...
>
> I just submitted a patch for it in ghc-X11 review
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751#c14
> now.  (Also in my cabal-rpm patches.)
>
> Jens
>
> --
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
> Fedora-packaging at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging






More information about the Fedora-haskell-list mailing list