> self-contained unlike some other distros. Are we moving anyway from that? > > Also housing the macros in ghc means that if we need to change them then > ghc needs to be rebuild which is a bit expensive - though hopefully that > would be not necessary too often. This thread is getting even more confusing. :-( I think what Yaakov mentioned was that these macros would be used only for compiling Hackage/Cabal packages (and the like) and not for building the GHC compiler itself. Right Yaakov? For now I have decided to use a modified version of Yaakov's original macros.ghc file, and build a test package with it and submit it. Will keep everyone updated in the following mails. -Rajesh On 2008-08-28-Thu 09:28:41 pm Jens Petersen wrote: > (Late followup since I spent most of yesterday working on a cabal-rpm > patch.) > > Yaakov Nemoy さんは書きました: > >>> * %buildsubdir is not a common way of doing things > >>> ** we need this macro in the install phase to get at the working dir > >>> we used to compile the package. > >> > >> This is not haskell specific and should really not be needed. > >> Let's try to get rid of it. > > > > It's needed for the macros that do file detection later on. Once we > > cd into the buildroot, we need a way of accessing the old dir we used > > to compile the package. Therefore, I've put it in a macro, and both > > sets of macros are mandatory. If you have a better solution, please > > fix it. > > No it is not needed: you could use ${RPM_BUILD_DIR} for that if > necessary (however see also the end of this mail). > > >> But how are packages supposed to get these macros? > >> Surely each package is not going to include all of > >> http://ynemoy.fedorapeople.org/haskell/macros.ghc ? > > > > That file is going to be packaged with ghc itself. I've submitted the > > following bug. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=460304 > > Do any other packages (languages) in Fedora provide rpm macros? One of > the things I always liked about fedora is that our spec files are > self-contained unlike some other distros. Are we moving anyway from that? > > Also housing the macros in ghc means that if we need to change them then > ghc needs to be rebuild which is a bit expensive - though hopefully that > would be not necessary too often. > > >> The macros are not really that ghc specific: they should be prefixed > >> cabal not ghc. > > > > Technically no, but I want to differentiate between what the > > theoretical command might be for foo haskell compiler, and what > > nuances there might be between compilers. > > I would prefer just a few macros suitable for cabal that would work > across ghc, hugs, etc, than something very specific to ghc. > > >> IMHO some of it seems to be overkill. > > > > How so? For the most part, i'm converting the work that Bryan has > > done into macros, and polished it up. Every step that's there is > > stuff that Bryan has decided is necessary. > > I created some patches to cleanup cabal-rpm's output. I wish you had > made clear earlier that that was where all this was coming from... if I > had known that I could have cleaned it up much earlier... > > As I noted yesterday: I finally tried cabal-rpm and finally realised > where all those macros are coming from. So sorry to Yaakov: it seems > most of my quibbles have actually been with cabal-rpm! ;) > > I think I may submit a cabal-rpm package to fedora so that it can be > included. > > IMHO a couple of self-contained spec templates are still quite > sufficient for now and that is the way I am inclined to go. Packaging > cabal packages is really not that hard, and to me hiding small > incantation in obscure macros really does not buy use much at all. As > long as packages follow the templates reviews should be just as > straightforward. > > >> - if %ghc_autotools is necessary, can the -p option be made optional? > > > > What should the default be? > > Profiling by default? I don't use profile much myself... what do others > think? > > >> I attach an (untested) which cleans up the macro file a bit. > > > > I've attached that to the bug report to add them to GHC. > > Thanks. There are still more changes that need to be made though. > > > >> * this file detection stuff is scary > > >> ** I've put it into a series of macros and documented it > > > > Ok, that might be useful. :) > > Has anyone other than me tested them though? The filelist macros in the > ghc-X11 review do not work for me, and they seem to be the same as in > the current macros... > > I just submitted a patch for it in ghc-X11 review > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426751#c14 > now. (Also in my cabal-rpm patches.) > > Jens > > -- > Fedora-packaging mailing list > Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging -- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging