[Fedora-haskell-list] dropping ghc_lib_package and ghc_binlib_package?

[Jens Petersen]

Hi,

I have been thinking for a while to update our packaging templates
to drop the "strong-handed" %ghc_lib_package and %ghc_binlib_package macros.
Not that that much wrong with them: they have given us very concise and
factored .spec files for a while now.

However feedback from other reviewers suggests that they seem a bit of barrier
for people reviewing our packages from outside the SIG who are not familiar with them,
and they do have one disadvantage: by defining the %files sections
they make control %doc files content somewhat a hack currently as some of
you are well aware.

So starting from cabal2spec-0.24 the templates may become a little
more verbose, but more readable and upfront about subpackages and files lists.

Below you can see the diff of the .spec changes for a current open package review.
The main proposed changes are:
- drop ghc_pkg_c_deps
- define the devel subpackage now
- drop %ghc_lib_package
- add %post and %postun
- filelists (ghc-%pkg_name only for ia32 archs)
- for binlib also need to define ghc-%pkg_name (conditionally)

I think it is not too bad and will lend to finer control of doc files,
give more of a standard Fedora feel to our .spec files, and perhaps a little
more freedom to packagers (though I still hope we can keep packages close to the templates).
Perhaps we could even get rid of filelist file generation for normal packages.
(Anyway I will still use ghc_binlib_package (bad name) for subpackaging in ghc.spec
so the macros will still be available if necessary.)

Any feedback or comments?

Finally I want to say yes I know the templates have been changed
a fair bit over the last few years but I am hoping with this change
to see the templates stabilize somewhat and hopefully going forward
we will just be seeing smaller minor tweaks and improvements.

Jens