From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Wed Jul 2 15:42:42 2008 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 17:42:42 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Submission of Haskell Packaging Guidelines for Review Message-ID: <7f692fec0807020842u5d3a6199r82d3e7bd19a67b79@mail.gmail.com> Hi Lists, I would like to submit the current draft of the Haskell Packaging Guidelines for a formal review. I have the packages listed on the DraftsToDo site, and everything you need should be contained within the wiki. The guidelines can be found here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Haskell There are still a few outstanding questions, but I think they could be better answered by the Packaging Committee rather than myself. Please let me know if there are to be any official meetings to discuss details about this, so I can be present. -Yaakov From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jul 2 17:46:13 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2008 13:46:13 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451877] unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807021746.m62HkDOj009485@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: unconfined_execmem_exec_t needed for several GHC-built Haskell binaries https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451877 dwalsh at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED ------- Additional Comments From dwalsh at redhat.com 2008-07-02 13:46 EST ------- Fixed in selinux-policy-3.3.1-74.fc9.noarch -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jul 3 10:18:37 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 06:18:37 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426753] Review Request: xmonad - A tiling window manager In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807031018.m63AIbRg025110@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: xmonad - A tiling window manager https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426753 ------- Additional Comments From loupgaroublond at gmail.com 2008-07-03 06:18 EST ------- SPEC: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/repo/xmonad.spec SRPM: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/repo/xmonad-0.7-1.fc9.src.rpm This update follows the Draft Guidelines, which are under review. Reviewing this package will help find problems in the guidelines. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jul 3 10:16:05 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 06:16:05 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807031016.m63AG5ZQ024854@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. Alias: ghc-X11 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 ------- Additional Comments From loupgaroublond at gmail.com 2008-07-03 06:16 EST ------- SPEC: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/repo/x11.spec SRPM: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/repo/ghc-x11-1.4.1-1.fc9.src.rpm This new version is compliant with the Draft Guidelines. Reviewing will find problems with the draft that is currently under evaluation. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jul 3 10:17:26 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 06:17:26 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426754] Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807031017.m63AHQC3024982@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-xmonad-contrib - Third party extensions for xmonad https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426754 ------- Additional Comments From loupgaroublond at gmail.com 2008-07-03 06:17 EST ------- SPEC: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/repo/xmonad-contrib.spec SRPM: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/repo/ghc-xmonad-contrib-0.7-1.fc9.src.rpm This update is compliant with the Draft Guidelines, which are under review. Reviewing this will help poke holes in the Guidelines -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Thu Jul 3 17:36:57 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 13:36:57 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 440493] FTBFS gtk2hs-0.9.12.1-8.fc9 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807031736.m63HavFP027353@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: FTBFS gtk2hs-0.9.12.1-8.fc9 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440493 fedora-triage-list at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|rawhide |9 matt_domsch at dell.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |DUPLICATE ------- Additional Comments From fedora-triage-list at redhat.com 2008-05-14 04:38 EST ------- Changing version to '9' as part of upcoming Fedora 9 GA. More information and reason for this action is here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping ------- Additional Comments From matt_domsch at dell.com 2008-07-03 13:36 EST ------- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 434005 *** -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jul 4 08:41:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 04:41:28 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807040841.m648fSPd011090@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. Alias: ghc-X11 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2008-07-04 04:41 EST ------- The spec file must be named the same as the package, ie ghc-X11. I don't agree about downcasing the name when upstream is clearly using X11. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jul 4 09:25:51 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2008 05:25:51 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807040925.m649PpmH019830@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. Alias: ghc-X11 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 ------- Additional Comments From loupgaroublond at gmail.com 2008-07-04 05:25 EST ------- I know, but it tends to lead to rIdiCuLOUS NaMinG schemes, if you ask me. I've commented in the guidelines talk page that there is a controversy over this. Comments have been added that Fedora does not yet have a clear policy on this either (see: python vs. perl). There are reasons for choosing both. Since I've put together the work, and we are still a meritocracy, I've decided to push my personal preference forward. I hope you believe me when I say I am not ignoring your preferences. I've asked the Packaging Committee to comment on this instead of me, and if they prefer mixed case naming schemes, I will be more than happy to switch everything around. But please, don't turn this into a bikeshed discussion. :) -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jul 7 04:52:44 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2008 00:52:44 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807070452.m674qiBW032652@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. Alias: ghc-X11 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2008-07-07 00:52 EST ------- Sorry but there is no ambiguity and the upstreaming naming of Haskell packages is quite consistent and usable. I urge you strongly to go along with the upstream naming conventions. http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/X11 -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Fri Jul 11 11:36:32 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 07:36:32 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807111136.m6BBaWUC017405@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. Alias: ghc-X11 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 ------- Additional Comments From loupgaroublond at gmail.com 2008-07-11 07:36 EST ------- Please discuss this at the next meeting with the Packaging Committee. I've asked them to review the guidelines, and this is one thing I want *them* to decide. There is definitely an ambiguity in the Fedora standards, no matter how many times you say there aren't. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jul 14 02:21:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 22:21:28 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807140221.m6E2LSSo003539@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. Alias: ghc-X11 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2008-07-13 22:21 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > Please discuss this at the next meeting with the Packaging Committee. Yes, I have no objections to discussing there, but at the end of the day of course they know much less about Haskell packaging than the SIG does, so I expect they would accept any recommendation we make either way. I think it makes more sense to discuss it first on fedora-haskell-list and get consensus there. > I've asked them to review the guidelines, and this is one thing I want *them* to > decide. Hmm, but they are still in draft state and we were supposed to finish these package reviews first but the guidelines would be ready... > There is definitely an ambiguity in the Fedora standards, no matter how > many times you say there aren't. I don't remember saying anything about the Fedora name standards - I said that naming of Haskell libraries tends to be pretty consistent (it is not like they use different casing in different places (like lowercase tarball, uppercase directory, mixed case module name or whatever). When there is consistent use of case in a project then that clearly indicates upstream thinks that that cased name is the correct name and there is no good reason for us to change that. X11 is such an example. Exceptions may occur and are indeed allowed by the Fedora Guidelines as you state and that is all ok, but it is not stop us from recommending Haskell libraries should follow the upstream naming as far as possible. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jul 14 10:22:34 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 06:22:34 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 426751] Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807141022.m6EAMYRf022954@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-X11 - A Haskell binding to the X11 graphics library. Alias: ghc-X11 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751 ------- Additional Comments From loupgaroublond at gmail.com 2008-07-14 06:22 EST ------- Sure. I plan on making this *very* clear to the Packaging Committee tomorrow. There's always this amibguity of upstream vs. downstream. I think it's best we inform them, and then let the people who know best make the final decision. I will make sure they see this conversation. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Mon Jul 14 14:51:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 10:51:03 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 250767] RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807141451.m6EEp3G8003099@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250767 ------- Additional Comments From bos at serpentine.com 2008-07-14 10:51 EST ------- I don't know why this would be occurring. Jens, any ideas? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From fedora at krishnan.cc Tue Jul 15 01:23:43 2008 From: fedora at krishnan.cc (Rajesh Krishnan) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:23:43 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Haskell packaging for multiple Fedora releases? Message-ID: <200807141823.43797.fedora@krishnan.cc> Hello, I have these quick questions about submitting RPMs for different Fedora releases and a quick scan thru' the Fedora packaging guidelines did not point me in the right direction. Here it goes: If I want to submit a number of packages that would build exactly the same way (that is, identical SRPMs) on Fedora8, Fedora9 and RawHide then do I need to submit 3 different Review Requests on bugzilla.redhat.com? And what if the source RPMs that I have created are different for Fedora 8, Fedora 9 and Rawhide? Then would that call for creating 3 different Review Requests on Bugzilla? Thanks in advance. -Rajesh From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jul 15 01:29:27 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 21:29:27 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 250767] RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807150129.m6F1TRv3000457@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250767 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2008-07-14 21:29 EST ------- Well I think it is as I tried to explain in comment 1: ie generating the .o files which is done at install time requires a fair bit of ram I guess. Otherwise I dunno. :) We could consider other approaches though shipping the .o files would basically double the size of library packages. An alternative might be to subpackage them? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From petersen at redhat.com Tue Jul 15 03:28:42 2008 From: petersen at redhat.com (Jens Petersen) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:28:42 +1000 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Haskell packaging for multiple Fedora releases? In-Reply-To: <200807141823.43797.fedora@krishnan.cc> References: <200807141823.43797.fedora@krishnan.cc> Message-ID: <487C196A.9090504@redhat.com> Rajesh Krishnan wrote: > If I want to submit a number of packages that would build exactly the same way > (that is, identical SRPMs) on Fedora8, Fedora9 and RawHide then do I need to > submit 3 different Review Requests on bugzilla.redhat.com? No just one review per package: the review would initially be for rawhide (devel) and then once accepted branches can be request for F-8 and F-9. > And what if the source RPMs that I have created are different for Fedora 8, > Fedora 9 and Rawhide? Then would that call for creating 3 different Review > Requests on Bugzilla? Not really - the package would be backported as necessary - ideally with minimal modifications to the current and older release. Any particular package in mind? For Haskell I guess the main difference might be the version ghc typically. Jens From loupgaroublond at gmail.com Tue Jul 15 08:53:24 2008 From: loupgaroublond at gmail.com (Yaakov Nemoy) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:53:24 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] Haskell packaging for multiple Fedora releases? In-Reply-To: <200807141823.43797.fedora@krishnan.cc> References: <200807141823.43797.fedora@krishnan.cc> Message-ID: <7f692fec0807150153m4fe18f4cna64a135be69e7d19@mail.gmail.com> On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:23 AM, Rajesh Krishnan wrote: > Hello, > > I have these quick questions about submitting RPMs for different Fedora > releases and a quick scan thru' the Fedora packaging guidelines did not point > me in the right direction. Here it goes: > > If I want to submit a number of packages that would build exactly the same way > (that is, identical SRPMs) on Fedora8, Fedora9 and RawHide then do I need to > submit 3 different Review Requests on bugzilla.redhat.com? > > And what if the source RPMs that I have created are different for Fedora 8, > Fedora 9 and Rawhide? Then would that call for creating 3 different Review > Requests on Bugzilla? > > Thanks in advance. If you use cabal-rpm, then it's really just a matter of changing the GHC version and the dist number in the spec file. The guidelines are designed around using Cabal as well, so again, the spec file should be as generic as possible. -yaakov From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jul 15 12:45:28 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:45:28 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 451872] Package request: ghc-6.8.3 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807151245.m6FCjSOf017873@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Package request: ghc-6.8.3 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451872 bos at serpentine.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jul 15 12:47:16 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 08:47:16 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 250767] RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807151247.m6FClGSl018153@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250767 ------- Additional Comments From bos at serpentine.com 2008-07-15 08:47 EST ------- Shared library support should arrive in 6.10, so I propose to do nothing about this for another few months :-) -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jul 15 16:25:57 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:25:57 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 250767] RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807151625.m6FGPvA1009113@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250767 ------- Additional Comments From gdweber at indiana.edu 2008-07-15 12:25 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Shared library support should arrive in 6.10, so I propose to do nothing about > this for another few months :-) I guess that's fine. I'd like to report an update on the situation, and to emphasize something in my earlier report. ****** The point I would like to emphasize is that building and installing from source finishes in a reasonable amount of time, but installing from rpm (yum) does not. Does that not suggest that something bizarre is happening in the rpm install that does not happen in the install from source? And since installing from source certainly generates the .o files, does that not cast some doubt on the theory that, when the rpm generates the .o files at install time, that's really the problem? I realize that 256 MB RAM seems small to you guys, but it's all I've got -- and it's adequate for most things, including building and installing gtk2hs from source, so why would it not be adequate for the rpm install? ****** Here's my update: I've moved to a faster computer, but still with 256 MB RAM. Installed Fedora 9. Tried to install ghc-gtk2hs, with the same results as I reported before. Downloaded the source tarball for gtk2hs 0.9.13 from http://haskell.org/gtk2hs/download/ # ./configure --prefix=/opt --enable-cairo --enable-svg \ --enable-opengl (Note, --enable-docs not included because that led to an installation failure -- incompatible version of haddock, I think.) # time make -- completed in 25 minutes 37 seconds real time, 12 minutes 44 seconds user time, 5 minutes 29 seconds sys time, with 2 Firefox processes running in the background (one for root and one for another user) # time make install -- completed in 41 seconds ****** Summary: 1. rpm install of gtk2hs still does not work 2. rpm generating .o files at install time does not seem to be the problem, since ... 3. ... install from source mostly* works, and does generate .o files (*except for generating documentation). 4. Since I have something that works, if you want to wait for GHC 6.10, before looking at it again, that's fine with me. By the way, thanks for moving this bug to rawhide, since (I guess) that keeps it alive after Fedora 7. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Tue Jul 15 19:27:20 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:27:20 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 250767] RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807151927.m6FJRKaQ011519@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250767 poelstra at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jul 16 06:55:35 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:55:35 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 250767] ghc-gtk2hs won't install with 256 MB RAM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807160655.m6G6tZSc021323@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: ghc-gtk2hs won't install with 256 MB RAM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250767 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-|ghc-gtk2hs won't install |gtk2hs, won't install with |with 256 MB RAM |256 MB RAM | -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jul 16 06:55:03 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:55:03 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 250767] RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807160655.m6G6t3pI021271@bz-web2.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250767 ------- Additional Comments From petersen at redhat.com 2008-07-16 02:55 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > Shared library support should arrive in 6.10 Oh cool! Finally! ;) We will probably need to revise the Haskell packaging guidelines for that then. (In reply to comment #7) > And since installing from source certainly generates the .o files, does that > not cast some doubt on the theory that, when the rpm generates the .o files > at install time, that's really the problem? Yes, my guess could be wrong. :) > # time make install > -- completed in 41 seconds Does that install .o files too? If not, can you try say running: ghc-pkg update --auto-ghci-libs /usr/lib/ghc/6.8.2/gtk2hs/gtk.package.conf by hand? -- 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, or are watching someone who is. From bugzilla at redhat.com Wed Jul 16 06:55:49 2008 From: bugzilla at redhat.com (bugzilla at redhat.com) Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2008 02:55:49 -0400 Subject: [Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 250767] ghc-gtk2hs won't install with only 256MB RAM In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200807160655.m6G6tnsd030216@bz-web1.app.phx.redhat.com> Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: ghc-gtk2hs won't install with only 256MB RAM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250767 petersen at redhat.com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|ghc-gtk2hs won't install |ghc-gtk2hs won't install |with 256 MB RAM |with only 256MB RAM -- 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, or are watching someone who is.