[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#504528: libghc6-configfile-dev: Fails to configure: MissingH-1.0.1 doesn't exist



Hi,

Am Mittwoch, den 19.11.2008, 13:51 -0600 schrieb John Goerzen:
> Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 19.11.2008, 11:22 -0600 schrieb John Goerzen:
> >> That is true.  I'm looking at dh_haskell_depends right now.  In
> >> libghc6-configfile-dev, it's inserting this:
> >>
> >> Depends: ghc6 (>= 6.8.2-7), ghc6 (<< 6.8.2+), libghc6-missingh-dev (>=
> >> 1.0.2.1), libghc6-missingh-dev (<< 1.0.2.1+), libghc6-mtl-dev (>=
> >> 1.1.0.0-2), libghc6-mtl-dev (<< 1.1.0.0+), libghc6-parsec-dev (>=
> >> 2.1.0.0-2), libghc6-parsec-dev (<< 2.1.0.0+)
> >>
> >> Now, libghc6-missingh-dev is a Debian native package, since I am
> >> upstream on that as well.  I use x.y.z for the upstream version number,
> >> and the last component for the Debian version number.  Debian version
> >> numbers do not imply API changes, cabal version number changes, or the
> >> need for recompilation.  On packages like libghc6-parsec-dev it seems to
> >> be doing the right thing regarding not causing a broken dep when the
> >> Debian version number increments.  I'm not sure what the right thing
> >> with a Debian-native package is here, but it's going to cause a lot of
> >> hassle as it is.
> > 
> > The ghc-pkg identifier for your package contains all four digits.
> 
> Oh drat, you're right.  I goofed on that.  OK, so this would have been
> fine if I hadn't broken my own scheme then, eh?  If cabal said just
> 1.0.2, it would just work?

No, it’s just fine:
libghc6-missingh-dev (>= 1.0.2.1), libghc6-missingh-dev (<< 1.0.2.1+)
means essentially (== 1.0.2.1), as long as you don’t start to add a 5th
digit. So when you upload a new version (with a new cabal version), the
old packages become uninstallable until re-built, just as intended.

> > $ grep-available -n -e -P 'libghc6-.*dev' -s Maintainer|sort | uniq -c
[..]
> Strange, I get rather different results here:
> 
> $ grep-available -n -e -P 'libghc6-.*dev' -s Maintainer|sort | uniq -c
[..]
> Which, at least for myself, I can vouch is more in line with reality ;-)

I guess I used the wrong command:

$ grep-aptavail -n -e -P 'libghc6-.*dev' -s Maintainer|sort | uniq -c
     21 Arjan Oosting <arjan@debian.org>
      2 Chris Lamb <chris@chris-lamb.co.uk>
      1 Eric Warmenhoven <warmenhoven@debian.org>
      3 Florian Ragwitz <rafl@debian.org>
     21 Ian Lynagh (wibble) <igloo@debian.org>
      2 Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org>
     16 John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
     11 Kari Pahula <kaol@debian.org>
     12 Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva <marcot@riseup.net>
      3 Recai Oktaş <roktas@debian.org>


> > Especially kaol’s opinion is important here, being the new ghc
> > maintainer, and Arjan, as the current maintainer of haskell-devscripts.
> 
> Completely agreed.

I’m currently talking to kaol on #debian-devel, and agrees, if I got him
correctly.

BTW, John, while I’m at it I found out that there are more haskell
packages that have unversioned binary dependencies, some of them are
yours:

$ grep-aptavail -e -P 'libghc6-.*dev' -s Maintainer,Package,Depends|grep-dctrl -F Depends -v -e 'libghc6-[^,]*-dev \(='|grep-dctrl -F Depends -v -e 'libghc6-[^,]*-dev \(<<'|grep-dctrl -F Depends -e 'libghc6-[^,]*-dev'|grep-dctrl -F Depends -e 'ghc6 ' -s Maintainer,Package
Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-anydbm-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-configfile-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-ftphs-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-hdbc-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-hdbc-missingh-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-hdbc-odbc-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-hdbc-postgresql-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-hdbc-sqlite3-dev

Maintainer: Recai Oktaş <roktas@debian.org>
Package: libghc6-highlighting-kate-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-hsh-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-hslogger-dev

Maintainer: Chris Lamb <chris@chris-lamb.co.uk>
Package: libghc6-irc-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-listlike-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-missingh-dev

Maintainer: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
Package: libghc6-missingpy-dev

Maintainer: Recai Oktaş <roktas@debian.org>
Package: libghc6-pandoc-dev

And furthermore the configfile-doc package does not have it’s
haddock-file registered with ghc-pkg and is not liked from
file:///usr/share/doc/ghc6-doc/libraries/index.html (comparing it to
haskell-mtl). Is that just not-yet-done, or is there a specific reason
for these variations?

Thanks,
Joachim

-- 
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil


Reply to: