[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 425882] Review Request: ghc-zlib - zlib bindings for ghc

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=425882


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #20 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2008-10-22 15:37:12 EDT ---
Finally.

This is the first one of these I've seen being done, so I'll have a few
probably obvious questions.

First off, why the hsc_name macro?  Or rather, why go to the trouble of
defining it to "ghc" only to use "ghc" explicitly later?  Wouldn't it be
simpler just to not use the macro at all?

If you build a package against ghc-zlib, will it be required at runtime?  I
guess what's confusing me is all the talk of static linking, and yet the .a
file is packaged, which implies that this is really some sort of -devel package
needed at compile time.  Is there no kind of runtime/-devel split of these
packages?

There's no reason to include the LICENSE file twice, is there?

Otherwise the %ghc_* macros hide all of the complexity nicely.  I'm not sure
I'd know how to find a test suite if one were included, so I can't really check
that.  With some good answers to the above questions I don't see any reason
this wouldn't pass review.

-- 
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.