Re: dh vs. cdbs [was: Error building package]
Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Em Qui, 2009-03-12 às 17:35 +1100, Trent W. Buck escreveu:
>> For my (non-Haskell library) packages, I have switched from using CDBS
>> to dh(1), a new feature in debhelper (>= 7). In general I have found
>> dh(1) makefiles easier to maintain because they have fewer "magic
>> Have you found time to look into the viability of using dh(1) for
>> Haskell libraries? If so, and you decided against it, would you please
>> outline the reasons?
> There's a dh addon in haskell-devscripts, which I wrote,
It turned out to be busted for me, http://bugs.debian.org/520703.
> but hlibrary.mk is being more actively maintained and is compatible
> with the current policy, while dh_haskell* and the dh addon still
> install files in old places.
That's a pity; I prefer dh to CDBS. Is CDBS even actively maintained?
> At first I thought it was a good idea to have more than one option to
> build haskell packages, but now I think it'll be difficult to maintain,
> cause it'll cause double work at each haskell policy change.
Well, we could always fix up the dh integration and drop the CDBS