Hi, I have been busy quietly building Haskell packages for F28 in the
f28-ghc side repo.
Overall it is going quite well but I have one serious packaging issue which
I think needs the packaging of the data-default-instannces-* subpackages to
be reviewed asap, I believe.
There is an upstream ghc bug related to this but I have not seen a patch
If people could help to review these 3 packages ASAP that would be really
awesome and hopefully still give us a chance to finish the GHC 8.2 + LTS 10
Change work for F28 before the mass rebuild next week.
(For extra fun currently Haskell packages don't build in Rawhide due to "-z
defs" now being set in redhat-rpm-config (though this change?). I have
disabled this in latest ghc-rpm-macros in f28-ghc but I didn't backport it
yet to Rawhide, since it is still under discussion.)
Please also note the coming packaging change that libHS*.so shared libs
will now be installed in %_libdir (eg /usr/lib64/) and so we will need to
run ldconfig install scripts (already in git master for most packages now).
A coming cabal-rpm release will do this too.
Also I would like to encourage Hackage package maintainers to try to follow
Stackage LTS versions rather than Hackage as far as possible, since this
will pretty much guarantee build consistency across our package set.
Cabal-rpm already does this today in F27+.
Thanks, and let me know if you have any comments, concerns or questions.
One thing you could do is to bisect when we lost the manpages: ie compare
the spec files and koji log files.
I think it happened from ghc-8.0.2? Probably something to do with sphinx.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Sergio Losilla <sergio.a.losilla(a)gmail.com>
> Yeah, from what I see they are quite incomplete, but better than nothing.
> I've never done anything like this :-D, so any hints where I should start?
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:05 AM Jens-Ulrik Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com>
>> Yeah, I opened a upstream bug, but seems it is a Fedora issue. (Not that
>> the man pages are that complete as I recall - maybe they have improved?)
>> Any help resolving that is most welcome!
Yeah, I opened a upstream bug, but seems it is a Fedora issue. (Not that
the man pages are that complete as I recall - maybe they have improved?)
Any help resolving that is most welcome!
On 11 Jan 2018 7:03 am, "Sergio Losilla" <sergio.a.losilla(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I noticed that there are no man pages on Fedora 27. Is there any reason
> for this? Can I help with this otherwise?