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

[Bryan O'Sullivan]

On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> wrote:

> But in the interests of simplicity
> and packaging guideline consistency perhaps we should get rid of it.
>  Specially if noone else cares. ;-) :)

:-)

I'll drop the split as of GHC 6.8.3, unless someone can think of a
good reason to keep it within the next few days.

I will make ghc obsolete ghc682, ghc681, ghc661, and ghc66, which will
cover us all the way back to Fedora 6 or so. I'll also make ghc-prof
obsolete ghc682-prof, ghc681-prof, ghc661-prof, and ghc66-prof.

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

Yes, definitely.

>> 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.

Actually, it seems to be intentional on the part of upstream, but the
comments in the build files don't indicate why.

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

I've got a bug open now to fix the appropriate SELinux policies.