Re: [Fwd: ITP: libghc6-extensible-exceptions -- Extensible exceptions for the Glasgow Haskell Compiler]
Em Qui, 2009-02-26 às 18:41 +0000, Joachim Breitner escreveu:
> Am Donnerstag, den 26.02.2009, 13:32 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e
> > Em Qui, 2009-02-26 às 16:15 +0100, Joachim Breitner escreveu:
> > > Am Donnerstag, den 26.02.2009, 11:20 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e
> > > Silva:
> > > > Assunto: ITP: libghc6-extensible-exceptions -- Extensible exceptions for
> > >
> > > I have looked at this as well, and already stated packaging it, when I
> > > noticed that all it does for ghc6.10 is re-exporting Control.Exception
> > > as Control.Exception.Extensible.
> > >
> > > So we do not need this package in Debian (where we only have one
> > > compiler) and can just patch each package to use the other module name.
> > I don't like the idea of patching upstream source, unless it's really
> > necessary. In this case, I think it would harm less to have a silly
> > package in the Debian context, than to have to patch the upstream
> > version, and maintain the patches for each upstream release, of each
> > package that depends on extensible-exceptions.
> While I generally agree that modifying upstream source should be
> avoided, this patch is just too simple not to apply :-) And not having
> another haskell package high in the dependency tree is a good thing,
I'm not very convinced. I'm not trying to convince about the other
side, but just to learn: why is it bad to have a silly haskell package
high in the dependency tree?
> I noticed that you use darcs to track your debian/ dir only. In case
> are not aware, you can use quilt or cdbs’s simple-patchsys to put your
> changes there too.
I know about quilt and simple-patchsys. Do they integrate with darcs?