Hi Andrew,

Please have a look at the review template here  [1] . Some items from the Package review guidelines which do not apply are marked [NA].

The cabal2spec program generates the template for the .spec file from the .cabal file. Then the packager modifies certain values and thats about it. The macros used in the template come from /etc/rpm/macros.ghc. There are cases were there is a need to add some files not picked by the macros and that has been done. Eg  [2]

For haskell packaging/review related queries ,  you could also mail to  fedora-haskell-list@redhat.com  or ask at #fedora-haskell .


On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 12:38 AM, Andrew McNabb <amcnabb@mcnabbs.org> wrote:
I recently came across an issue in a package review where I would
appreciate guidance.  In particular, I have never dealt with Haskell
packages before, and I haven't been able to find enough detail in the
Haskell Packaging Guidelines to answer my questions:


It seems that there's a tool called cabal2spec that autogenerates spec
files for Haskell programs.  However, the spec files that it outputs are
a little unusual.

The spec file I'm reviewing has no %package sections and no %files
sections.  Instead, there is a reference to a "%{?ghc_lib_package}"
macro that implicitly defines the package and two subpackages.  The
Haskell Packaging Guidelines don't seem to describe how all of the magic
works, so I'm not quite sure what standards I'm supposed to use in my
review.  Here's a link to the package request:


It looks like other Haskell libraries are packaged in a similar way, but
it's enough different from most packages that the Package Review
Guidelines don't seem to cleanly apply.  I would appreciate advice on
how to proceed.  Thanks.

Andrew McNabb
PGP Fingerprint: 8A17 B57C 6879 1863 DE55  8012 AB4D 6098 8826 6868
devel mailing list

Lakshmi Narasimhan T V