[Fedora-haskell-list] Re: Test package - Cabal-1.4.0.2 (using cabal_* macros). was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Revised Haskell Guidelines 2008.08.13

[Rajesh Krishnan]

> Actually we could face this problem immediately if Rajesh submits
> haskell-Cabal, since it should really be packaged for both ghc and hugs98.

The package I submitted earlier in this thread IS haskell-cabal.  It is named 
ghc-cabal simply because I used ghc to compile it.  Look at the 
macros.haskell that it depends on, and you will see what I mean.

I can see Yaakov's point too, of having the macro file as macros.ghc which is 
specific to ghc.  

> Actually we could face this problem immediately if Rajesh submits
> haskell-Cabal, since it should really be packaged for both ghc and hugs98.

Wait a minute, Jens! You are asking for too much!  At this time, I am not too 
much interested in getting into hugs98, and I don't plan test any packages I 
submit on Hugs or other Haskell platforms for now.  

But maybe in future others who join the team might want to create a specific 
set of packages for Hugs98.  They would then have the freedom to create their 
specific macro file called macros.hugs and create and submit their favorite 
packages like hugs-<package>.rpm  or something.

-Rajesh





On 2008-08-28-Thu 07:42:13 pm Jens Petersen wrote:
> Yaakov Nemoy さんは書きました:
> > 2008/8/28 Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com>:
> >> Yaakov Nemoy さんは書きました:
> >>> If we do this, then each 'library' package is going to have to support
> >>> every single compiler we have.
> >>
> >> No they don't have to but they can if they want. :)
> >
> > It would be messy.
> >
> >>> I would rather have one SRPM per library per compiler.
> >>
> >> I thought we proposed "haskell-%pkg_name" exactly for this?
> >
> > Nope, that's why it's %haskell_compiler-%pkg_name exactly for this.
> > Otherwise, we can only support one compiler without a lot of weird
> > tricks.
>
> I quote from PackagingDrafts/Haskell...:
>
> "If a library supports multiple Haskell compilers or interpreters, the
> base name should instead be prefixed with haskell, e.g. haskell-X11."
>
> So you want to withtract this? :)
>
> > (Granted, we could just include multiple macros for multiple compilers
> > in a single spec file, and then build and publish a single RPM for
> > each library that supports multiple compilers.  I think this would
> > lead to alot of bloat.  Alternatively, we could have a single spec
> > file per library, and have it generate multiple subpackages, one for
> > each compiler.  I would rather have one spec per compiler per
> > library.)
>
> Well that is what they do in the Emacs Lisp world for Emacs and XEmacs
> and it works: it is a really pain having to maintain parallel packages
> for different compiler.
>
> Actually we could face this problem immediately if Rajesh submits
> haskell-Cabal, since it should really be packaged for both ghc and hugs98.
>
> > AFAIK, the run time you use to run Setup.hs is the runtime that the
> > library is compiled against.  Namely, runhaskell that runs runghc
> > would create a package for GHC.
>
> I don't think it matters since it is only "scripting" and cabal is
> supposed to be portable Haskell98 presumably.
>
> Jens