Yaakov Nemoy さんは書きました:
2008/8/28 Jens Petersen <petersen(a)redhat.com>:
> Yaakov Nemoy さんは書きました:
>> If we do this, then each 'library' package is going to have to support
>> every single compiler we have.
> No they don't have to but they can if they want. :)
It would be messy.
>> I would rather have one SRPM per library per compiler.
> I thought we proposed "haskell-%pkg_name" exactly for this?
Nope, that's why it's %haskell_compiler-%pkg_name exactly for this.
Otherwise, we can only support one compiler without a lot of weird
tricks.
I quote from PackagingDrafts/Haskell...:
"If a library supports multiple Haskell compilers or interpreters, the
base name should instead be prefixed with haskell, e.g. haskell-X11."
So you want to withtract this? :)
(Granted, we could just include multiple macros for multiple
compilers
in a single spec file, and then build and publish a single RPM for
each library that supports multiple compilers. I think this would
lead to alot of bloat. Alternatively, we could have a single spec
file per library, and have it generate multiple subpackages, one for
each compiler. I would rather have one spec per compiler per
library.)
Well that is what they do in the Emacs Lisp world for Emacs and XEmacs
and it works: it is a really pain having to maintain parallel packages
for different compiler.
Actually we could face this problem immediately if Rajesh submits
haskell-Cabal, since it should really be packaged for both ghc and hugs98.
AFAIK, the run time you use to run Setup.hs is the runtime that the
library is compiled against. Namely, runhaskell that runs runghc
would create a package for GHC.
I don't think it matters since it is only "scripting" and cabal is
supposed to be portable Haskell98 presumably.
Jens