[Fedora-haskell-list] Thinking about changes to ghc packaging

[Jens Petersen]

Bryan O'Sullivan さんは書きました:
 > One of the things that Yaakov has suggested, in his draft Haskell
 > package management guidelines, is a simplification of the layout for
 > Haskell library packages. I think that some time ago, there was a
 > desire to support multiple versions of GHC installed concurrently. In
 > all the time that we've had the infrastructure to support that more or
 > less in place, the packaging energy to actually do anything about it
 > has never materialised, and I think it never will.

The reason for it was not really to have multiple parallel versions in 
fedora trees at once but to give people a little time to update their 
libs and own projects to newer versions of ghc - since it has a pretty 
bad record on API (and of course breaking ABI with every minor release). 
  What do we do when haskell libs won't compile with a new release 
(particularly for major new versions) is still an issue anyway I guess - 
we will get repo deps warnings anyway.

So yeah basically I agree it is not needed for fedora per se since we 
don't plan on shipping parallel packages though users may still find it 
useful.  Also ghc taking a long time to build so for that reason the 
ability to do parallel installs was quite attractive.  But in the 
interests of simplicity and packaging guideline consistency perhaps we 
should get rid of it.  Specially if noone else cares. ;-) :)

That's some history on background to this packaging exception anyway.

 > I'd like to take Yaakov's suggestion for packages and apply it to GHC
 > itself. Instead of splitting GHC into ghc and ghc682 packages, we'd
 > have a single ghc package that would represent the current version.

I suggest we still keep the ghc-doc and ghc-prof subpackages anyway.

 > I need to perform some surgery on the GHC spec file over the coming
 > few days in any case, because it violates a few of the packaging
 > guidelines (e.g. binaries in %{_libdir} instead of %{_libexecdir}) and

Ok - that might have related to the versioned packages too.

 > has some bugs besides (it shouldn't be messing with SELinux labels in
 > the %post script).

Right that is a hack.

Jens