[Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library.

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=426751





--- Comment #32 from Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com>  2008-12-15 23:17:38 EDT ---
> but in case the documentation is not big,
> there is no need to add it to a separate doc subpackage.

Documentation is not actually being subpackaged here: the flag would just be
for whether the docs get build or not: generally no reason not to do that,
though occasionally docs building can break with certain versions of haddock
say.

> Here is a patch:
> http://till.fedorapeople.org/ghx-X11-buildcond.patch

Thanks - will try to fold that into the templates.

> Btw. is there any need to require a certain version of ghc except for making
> sure that the pkg_libdir exists, i.e. would it be possible to just use a
> Requires: ghc, given that one can use some spec-fu to automatically build the
> pkg_libdir path and Requires from the ghc version that was used to build the
> rpm? Iirc it was only required in previous Fedora releases, to allow parallel
> installation of different ghc version, which is not supported anymore.

Good question.  I see what you're saying, but since ghc libraries change ABI
with every minor version I think it is useful to document what version a
library has been built with - though I suppose one can also look at the binary
package metadata for that.  Let's think a little more about it.

-- 
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.