[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 250767] RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250767
------- Additional Comments From petersen(a)redhat.com 2008-07-16 02:55 EST -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Shared library support should arrive in 6.10
Oh cool! Finally! ;)
We will probably need to revise the Haskell packaging guidelines for that then.
(In reply to comment #7)
> And since installing from source certainly generates the .o files, does that
> not cast some doubt on the theory that, when the rpm generates the .o files
> at install time, that's really the problem?
Yes, my guess could be wrong. :)
> # time make install
> -- completed in 41 seconds
Does that install .o files too?
If not, can you try say running:
ghc-pkg update --auto-ghci-libs /usr/lib/ghc/6.8.2/gtk2hs/gtk.package.conf
by hand?
--
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, or are watching someone who is.
15 years, 2 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 250767] RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: RPMs for ghc-gtk2hs, ghc661-gtk2hs, won't install with 256 MB RAM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=250767
------- Additional Comments From gdweber(a)indiana.edu 2008-07-15 12:25 EST -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Shared library support should arrive in 6.10, so I propose to do nothing about
> this for another few months :-)
I guess that's fine. I'd like to report an update on the situation, and to
emphasize something in my earlier report.
******
The point I would like to emphasize is that building and installing
from source finishes in a reasonable amount of time, but installing from rpm
(yum) does not. Does that not suggest that something bizarre is happening
in the rpm install that does not happen in the install from source?
And since installing from source certainly generates the .o files, does that
not cast some doubt on the theory that, when the rpm generates the .o files
at install time, that's really the problem?
I realize that 256 MB RAM seems small to you guys, but it's all I've got --
and it's adequate for most things, including building and installing gtk2hs
from source, so why would it not be adequate for the rpm install?
******
Here's my update:
I've moved to a faster computer, but still with 256 MB RAM. Installed
Fedora 9. Tried to install ghc-gtk2hs, with the same results as I reported
before.
Downloaded the source tarball for gtk2hs 0.9.13 from
http://haskell.org/gtk2hs/download/
# ./configure --prefix=/opt --enable-cairo --enable-svg \
--enable-opengl
(Note, --enable-docs not included because that led to an installation failure
-- incompatible version of haddock, I think.)
# time make
-- completed in 25 minutes 37 seconds real time,
12 minutes 44 seconds user time, 5 minutes 29 seconds sys time,
with 2 Firefox processes running in the background
(one for root and one for another user)
# time make install
-- completed in 41 seconds
******
Summary:
1. rpm install of gtk2hs still does not work
2. rpm generating .o files at install time does not seem to be the problem,
since ...
3. ... install from source mostly* works, and does generate .o files
(*except for generating documentation).
4. Since I have something that works, if you want to wait for GHC 6.10,
before looking at it again, that's fine with me.
By the way, thanks for moving this bug to rawhide, since (I guess) that keeps it
alive after Fedora 7.
--
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, or are watching someone who is.
15 years, 2 months
[Fedora-haskell-list] Haskell packaging for multiple Fedora releases?
by Rajesh Krishnan
Hello,
I have these quick questions about submitting RPMs for different Fedora
releases and a quick scan thru' the Fedora packaging guidelines did not point
me in the right direction. Here it goes:
If I want to submit a number of packages that would build exactly the same way
(that is, identical SRPMs) on Fedora8, Fedora9 and RawHide then do I need to
submit 3 different Review Requests on bugzilla.redhat.com?
And what if the source RPMs that I have created are different for Fedora 8,
Fedora 9 and Rawhide? Then would that call for creating 3 different Review
Requests on Bugzilla?
Thanks in advance.
-Rajesh
15 years, 2 months