haskell-devel September 2008

haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
67 discussions

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460304] Add macros to GHC for packaging cabal packages for GHC
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

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=460304 --- Comment #12 from Yaakov Nemoy <loupgaroublond(a)gmail.com> 2008-09-04 23:11:23 EDT --- Perhaps I should have been more specific. Jen's macros call 'runhaskell'. This defaults to the default compiler on any given system. I would prefer we deliberately called runghc. Take the following case. User A installs GHC and develops a package. He posts a spec for review. User B prefers NHC and has it set up as his default compiler. He downloads the SRPM and builds it, which automatically gets built with NHC. He then tests it in mock, and it also works. Mock used GHC. Weird but ok. User C uses Hugs98, and creates a second package. He doesn't test it in mock, because sometimes he's lazy. User B downloads the SRPM and tries to build it. For some odd reason, hugs chokes on it. Weird, and not ok. Then for some reason, the patch User B figures out makes GHC choke. When the package is compiled with mock, we have total failure. This use case rubs against me the wrong way, because we used runhaskell instead of runghc. If we use runghc, then all three users will automatically use GHC, and automatically be working on the same platform. The package will then be named ghc-* because it was tested on that. When User B decides both packages should be done up in NHC, and User C decides hugs98 suits him better, they both copy the macros file, patch the compiler RPMs, and create nhc-* and hugs98-* variants. The world is a happier place. To make it absolutely clear, i'm not worried about the content of the macros. Jen clearly knows what works better than I. I just think, that unless any particular macro does not depend on the command 'runhaskell', namely can do things exactly the same way, no matter which compiler is on the system, then we can prefix it with 'cabal_'. To the best of my knowledge, no macros meet these requirements. Likewise, the prefix 'haskell_' is also wrong. I would rather we stick to a consistent ghc- and ghc_ naming scheme. On a side note, the packages I have submitted for review (the are blocked on this bug, so you can find them through that reference) were built and tested using my version. Please be extra careful when testing them with Jens' version. -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460304] Add macros to GHC for packaging cabal packages for GHC
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

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=460304 Tom Moertel <tom(a)moertel.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tom(a)moertel.com --- Comment #11 from Tom Moertel <tom(a)moertel.com> 2008-09-04 21:54:47 EDT --- I suggest everybody compare Jens's updated ghc-X11 spec (A) with the previous version (B). I scrutinized every change with ediff, and in each case I prefer the updated version. A: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=315734 B: http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/repo/ghc-X11.spec Does anybody see any *technical* problems with Jens's macros? If so, let's get those problems in the open so we can solve them. Cheers, Tom -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460304] Add macros to GHC for packaging cabal packages for GHC
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

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=460304 --- Comment #10 from Bryan O'Sullivan <bos(a)serpentine.com> 2008-09-04 21:15:48 EDT --- I'm willing to give this a few more days to settle out, but Miles is right, time is of the essence. See below. Re comment #5: > 1) the macros should be prefixed with ghc, not cabal or haskell GHC-specific macros should be prefixed with ghc. Many of the macros provided by both of you are not specific to GHC. > 2) library packages should be prefixed with ghc-, not haskell- I would prefer this approach, too. I do not believe that asking maintainers to support multiple Haskell implementations will scale. > Also, I would like to ask that you backport the macros to everything, because > they are definitely needed in order to build packages. OK. I would like to suggest a deadline of next Thursday (Sep 11) to resolve the two sets of macro files into one. We will have to move quickly afterwards to adapt to the changes in GHC 6.10.1 if we want to ship that in F10 (which I *very* much want to do). Those changes include shared library support, so the amount of work involved will not be trivial. The 6.10.1 release candidate should appear on the 19th, and I will have a little time at ICFP to whip the spec file and macros into shape. -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460304] Add macros to GHC for packaging cabal packages for GHC
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

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=460304 --- Comment #9 from Miles Sabin <miles(a)milessabin.com> 2008-09-04 21:06:10 EDT --- A couple of dozen "good enough" packages would be preferable to zero perfect ones. I was under the impression that Yaakov's macros had already been approved. Bryan also supports them, so do I, so can we just move on now please ... -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460304] Add macros to GHC for packaging cabal packages for GHC
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

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=460304 --- Comment #8 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-09-04 20:31:13 EDT --- (In reply to comment #6) > I'd like to echo Bryan's comment that we should stop haggling and get on with this. We're not haggling - just trying to come up with a same set of macros that is actually useful. I think mine are a good improvement on Yaakov's original proposal and would like to see them or something close to them adopted. > Rather than dragging this on interminably I think it would be vastly > preferable to get a few packages built and worry about minor tweaks later. I disagree: I would rather get a decent of macros in place now than having to update lots of packages later to take in modifications. As a person who actually owns some haskell packages in fedora and who started Haskell packaging for Fedora and the Haskell SIG I hope my suggestions at least carry a little weight... -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460304] Add macros to GHC for packaging cabal packages for GHC
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

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=460304 --- Comment #7 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-09-04 20:24:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > These macros present a few problems. They only work for our default compiler, Can you explain? As far as I can see they should be useful for any Haskell implementation that support Cabal. They look completely portable to be, as cabal indeed should be. > and furthermore, when a user changes the default compiler, could introduce some > weird breakage in mock when he/she forgets that it uses two different > compilers. details? As others suggested I would like to see these macros get included in rpm eventually. -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460304] Add macros to GHC for packaging cabal packages for GHC
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

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=460304 Miles Sabin <miles(a)milessabin.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |miles(a)milessabin.com --- Comment #6 from Miles Sabin <miles(a)milessabin.com> 2008-09-04 20:01:57 EDT --- I'd like to echo Bryan's comment that we should stop haggling and get on with this. Rather than dragging this on interminably I think it would be vastly preferable to get a few packages built and worry about minor tweaks later. -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460304] Add macros to GHC for packaging cabal packages for GHC
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460304] Add macros to GHC for packaging cabal packages for GHC
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

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=460304 --- Comment #4 from Bryan O'Sullivan <bos(a)serpentine.com> 2008-09-04 15:47:37 EDT --- I'd really rather we didn't spend much more time haggling over the macros. Both Jens's and Yaakov's macros are good enough. For the foreseeable future, we should not care about supporting multiple compilers, because everybody uses GHC. If some crowd of users comes along who desperately wants hugs support, I would prefer that we consider their needs then, rather than adding further delay and contention now. Unless there's a strong reason not to, I will commit Yaakov's existing macros file in a day or two. I intend to do this only for ghc 6.8.3 in rawhide, unless someone thinks we should backport 6.8.3 to F9. -- 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.

1 0

[Fedora-haskell-list] [Bug 460304] Add macros to GHC for packaging cabal packages for GHC
by Red Hat Bugzilla 04 Sep '08

04 Sep '08

1 0

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

haskell-devel September 2008