[Fedora-haskell-list] Re: Test package - Cabal- (using cabal_* macros). was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Revised Haskell Guidelines 2008.08.13

Rajesh Krishnan fedora at krishnan.cc
Fri Aug 29 09:34:52 UTC 2008

> So do you have a specific package in mind?  

Well I don't have any specific example available just over the top of my head.  
But from what I know about Cabal file format , it should be quite trivial to 
create a package that has 1 library and more than 1 executable sections.  
Though I haven't come across any .cabal file with more than 1 library 
sections (and a single library section is almost always sufficient), the 
Cabal documentation does not state clearly if more than 1 library sections 
could be present or not (I just checked, though I haven't experimentally 
verified this).


On 2008-08-28-Thu 05:03:36 pm Jens Petersen wrote:
> Rajesh Krishnan さんは書きました:
> > For Hackage packages that contain only libraries, or a single executable,
> > the package building specification  is clear (name the RPM for library
> > only package xyz as ghc-xyz, and name the RPM for a single executable
> > package xyz as just xyz without the ghc prefix).
> The example corresponding to xmonad (which has both an executable and
> library) is given in the guidelines: the base package name in that case
> should be just "xmonad".
> >  What would be the RPM name for a Hackage package xyz that contains
> > multiple libraries and multiple executables? Is it OK to create a single
> > RPM called xyz  in for such a package, or do they necessarily need to be
> > split up into multiple package fragments?  Please explain if you could. 
> > Note that the number of such fragmented RPMs would multiply fast
> > (creation of perhaps -prof and -doc etc. if applicable for each
> > subpackage) .
> So do you have a specific package in mind?  It is easier to discuss
> concrete examples than hypothetical cases. :)
> Jens

More information about the Fedora-haskell-list mailing list