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=479793 --- Comment #6 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-14 03:10:26 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Done. (Or I guess, your patch does this.) Although rpmbuild complains as I told > you on IRC. Strange - builds ok for me on f10 (and f11 mock) anyway. > > Hmm, /usr/share/doc/ghc/libraries is owned by ghc-doc but not required by > > ghc-cpphs - looks like a oversight of the guidelines. > > > > Wondering whether we should subpackage haddock docs for this or do something > > else. > > Well, at any rate ghc-cpphs must depend on ghc-doc (or ghc-doc if we create a > subpackage for the docs). Right. Since ghc-doc is quite big I am leaning towards subpackaging for all libraries' docs generated by haddock. I guess in this case ghc-cpphs-doc say. Any other thoughts from the Haskell SIG? -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review