[Fedora-haskell-list] Test package - Cabal-1.4.0.2 (using cabal_* macros). was: Re: [Fedora-packaging] Revised Haskell Guidelines 2008.08.13

[Rajesh Krishnan]

Yaakov / Jens,

Have we finally decided if what style of macros we wish to move forward with 
(ghc_* v/s cabal_*)?  I looked at Jens' update for the macros file and liked 
the syntax, and created this sample package for the latest version of Cabal 
(1.4.0.2).  The specified SPEC below compiles well on F8 and F9 (the rpmbuild 
command on rawhide (F10) seems to have BuildRoot resolution issues at the 
moment, and may not build on rawhide).  Here are the F9 source and binaries 
(tested on F9 on amd64, with ghc-6.8.3):

RPM(x86_64):
http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/RPMS/x86_64/ghc-cabal-1.4.0.2-1.fc9.x86_64.rpm

RPM(i386):
http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/RPMS/i386/ghc-cabal-1.4.0.2-1.fc9.i386.rpm

SPEC:
http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SPECS/ghc-cabal.spec

SRPM:
http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/SRPMS/ghc-cabal-1.4.0.2-1.fc9.src.rpm

macros.haskell:
http://krishnan.cc/devel/repository/fedora/MISC/macros.haskell
(This is the modified file with cabal_* style macros as proposed by Jens. Note 
that we  need to place macros.haskell under /etc/rpm to successfully build 
with the above .spec).


YAAKOV:  Note that the macros.haskell file needs another variable 
called %{internal_name} which needs to get defined in the spec for Hackage 
that start with a capital letter (like the Cabal example mentioned here).  
Otherwise it IMHO it is not possible keep the resulting rpm name (ghc-cabal) 
in all lowercase letters as per the Haskell package building specification.

If we have decided stay with the original macros.ghc  style macros (ghc_*) 
then I can update the package and resubmit with the modified macros.ghc file.  
I am not biased towards either macros.ghc or macros.haskell, and either one 
of them  is fine with me (will need to tweak them a bit of course).

And also, could somebody help me with getting some file-hosting space on 
FedoraPeople or Fedoraproject sites?  That would help me upload the packages 
and spec related files for public sharing.

Let me know if anyone is unable to access the files over the URLs mentioned 
above.

-Rajesh


-




On 2008-08-27-Wed 06:00:01 pm Yaakov Nemoy wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 8:26 PM, Jens Petersen <petersen at redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Jason,
> >
> >> Because the draft was submitted to us as complete, and we voted on it.
> >
> > I understood that it was submitted as a draft for comments...
>
> Long ago, i got tired of submitting drafts for comments to have to
> wait.  I took spot's advice and just submitted them for review and
> comment simultaneously.  The principle idea was that I put a deadline
> on the commenting period, and if there were no comments by a certain
> time, then it would go straight to review. This way, two groups of
> people got a chance to look at the drafts at the same time.
>
> Finally, it went for a review by the Committee, and they made their
> comments.  We also discussed your comments.  I addressed their
> comments, which was the final request for review.
>
> Like I said (accidentally offlist), it's not set in stone either, I'm
> still listening.
>
> -Yaakov
>
> --
> Fedora-packaging mailing list
> Fedora-packaging at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging