Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ghc-gtk2hs https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189197 ------- Additional Comments From petersen@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-05-04 00:00 EST ------- (In reply to comment #8) > I find it a little annoying that the doc directories are: > ghc642-gtk-0.9.10 > ghc-gtk2hs-doc-0.9.10 > More consistent would be: > ghc-gtk2hs-0.9.10 > ghc-gtk2hs-doc-0.9.10 [Hmm, the situation with ghc is actually similar: html under ghc-6.4.2/ and doc files in ghc642-6.4.2/.] I might be more tempted to just put all the doc files under ghc-gtk2hs-0.9.10/ irrespective of the subpackage they are in (or even gtk2hs-0.9.10/: see below). The reason those doc files are in ghc642-gtk is more of a historical artefact: ghc642-gtk used to be the main ghc642-gtk2hs package and then there were other subpackages like ghc642-gtk2hs-gconf etc. I moved ChangeLog and TODO to the -doc subpackage for now anyway, and AUTHORS and COPYING.LIB to -glib. > This would mean, that the doc files would go in the ghc-gtk2hs-0.9.10 > package which is currently. Is is possible however to install the > subpackages without the main package. Probably one could make > the package ghc642-gtk require ghc-gtk2hs, so that ghc-gtk2hs is always > installed. Hmm, but that then introduces a circular dependency which I think is frowned upon in Fedora packaging circles. I noticed that ChangeLog file is quite big btw: perhaps it should be gzip'ed or just not included? My only concern now with the current package naming (ghc-gtk2hs) is: what happens if/when one day we want to build/package gtk2hs with another Haskell compiler or interpreter (say nhc98, jhc or hugs)? In that sense using a more generic name for the source package (eg just gtk2hs) might be better after all? (We can still have a ghc-gtk2hs subpackage of course even in this case.) -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review