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=425882 --- Comment #36 from Jens Petersen <petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-13 19:50:15 EDT --- (In reply to comment #35) > One remaining question: if ghc library packages in the future do grow a runtime > component, that will imply not only that this package grows a -devel subpackage > but that anything which build against it has to change to having a build > dependency on the -devel package. That could be avoided now in a couple of > ways, but I don't know whether the possibility of ghc supporting shared > libraries is sufficiently remote that its not worth it. The simplest way is > for this package to provide ghc-zlib-devel and for other packages to > BuildRequires: that. In any case, I'll leave that up to you folks. That is a very good suggestion and I think we should adopt that, since ghc is moving to support shared libraries. > We definitely need to get the full list of dependencies into the guidelines. > Currently I think the haddock ones are missing. Or am I confused and is > haddock somehow brought in by ghc? ghc-6.10.1 includes a version of haddock now, but ghc-6.8.3 does not. (Hence my suggestion to do the review against ghc-6.10.1, but it is not yet in rawhide, just dist-f11.) -- 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