I have a working spec file that builds the GHC 6.10.1 beta, and the beta itself seems solid so far.
What I'd like to do is push it to F-10 as soon as F-10 and 6.10.1 are both final. This will require a rebuild of ghc-gtk2hs, but nothing more.
We'll need to retire the haddock package, as GHC itself now builds and installs haddock. I'll mark the GHC package as obsoleting the haddock package.
We're still several weeks away from 6.10.1, by the way: there are some major changes in Cabal that need to be smoothed out so that the entire store of packages on Hackage doesn't break.
Hi Bryan,
Thanks for the headsup. :)
I have a working spec file that builds the GHC 6.10.1 beta, and the beta itself seems solid so far.
What I'd like to do is push it to F-10 as soon as F-10 and 6.10.1 are both final. This will require a rebuild of ghc-gtk2hs, but nothing more.
Cool - sounds good to push as an early f10 update.
We'll need to retire the haddock package, as GHC itself now builds and installs haddock. I'll mark the GHC package as obsoleting the haddock package.
Ok
I suggest we branch the ghc package for F-10 now so that you can go ahead with ghc-6.10 packaging in the devel branch.
We should really backport 6.8.3 to F-9 too.
Jens
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
I suggest we branch the ghc package for F-10 now so that you can go ahead with ghc-6.10 packaging in the devel branch.
I saw that you did something, but I don't have an "F-10" directory under cvs ghc. Should I be using the devel directory instead?
We should really backport 6.8.3 to F-9 too.
I don't think it's worth the effort. It will force users to recompile their libraries more or less needlessly.
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 12:27 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan bos@serpentine.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
I suggest we branch the ghc package for F-10 now so that you can go ahead with ghc-6.10 packaging in the devel branch.
I saw that you did something, but I don't have an "F-10" directory under cvs ghc. Should I be using the devel directory instead?
Someone helpful on #fedora-devel told me about "cvs up -Pd". I've got a build going now, based on the release candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=875822
I've got a build going now, based on the release candidate: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=875822
Let's keep ghc-6.10.0 snapshot builds to the devel branch for now until 6.10.1 is released and then we can build it for f10.
I retagged the builds in koji to dist-f11.
Jens
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan bos@serpentine.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 7:51 PM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
I suggest we branch the ghc package for F-10 now so that you can go ahead with ghc-6.10 packaging in the devel branch.
I saw that you did something, but I don't have an "F-10" directory under cvs ghc. Should I be using the devel directory instead?
We should really backport 6.8.3 to F-9 too.
I don't think it's worth the effort. It will force users to recompile their libraries more or less needlessly.
Yes, but 6.8.2 doesn't have the macros they need. (Unless there was a build for it that I missed somewhere.)
-Yaakov
We should really backport 6.8.3 to F-9 too.
I don't think it's worth the effort. It will force users to
recompile their libraries more or less needlessly.
Hmm ok. I wonder though how many people as still using 6.8.2 though or just downloading the binary or rpm from upstream...
Yes, but 6.8.2 doesn't have the macros they need. (Unless there was a build for it that I missed somewhere.)
Right was waiting for 6.8.3 for f9 but I can push an update for the macros instead.
Jens
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Jens Petersen petersen@redhat.com wrote:
We should really backport 6.8.3 to F-9 too.
I don't think it's worth the effort. It will force users to
recompile their libraries more or less needlessly.
Hmm ok. I wonder though how many people as still using 6.8.2 though or just downloading the binary or rpm from upstream...
Yes, but 6.8.2 doesn't have the macros they need. (Unless there was a build for it that I missed somewhere.)
Right was waiting for 6.8.3 for f9 but I can push an update for the macros instead.
Jens
Please do, this way we can start pushing packages through review.
-Yaakov
haskell-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org