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=426751
--- Comment #32 from Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com> 2008-12-15 23:17:38 EDT
---
but in case the documentation is not big,
there is no need to add it to a separate doc subpackage.
Documentation is not actually being subpackaged here: the flag would just be
for whether the docs get build or not: generally no reason not to do that,
though occasionally docs building can break with certain versions of haddock
say.
Thanks - will try to fold that into the templates.
Btw. is there any need to require a certain version of ghc except for
making
sure that the pkg_libdir exists, i.e. would it be possible to just use a
Requires: ghc, given that one can use some spec-fu to automatically build the
pkg_libdir path and Requires from the ghc version that was used to build the
rpm? Iirc it was only required in previous Fedora releases, to allow parallel
installation of different ghc version, which is not supported anymore.
Good question. I see what you're saying, but since ghc libraries change ABI
with every minor version I think it is useful to document what version a
library has been built with - though I suppose one can also look at the binary
package metadata for that. Let's think a little more about it.
--
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.