Em Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:37:29 +0200
Joachim Breitner <firstname.lastname@example.org> escreveu:
> Am Dienstag, den 07.07.2009, 08:48 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e
> > Em Tue, 07 Jul 2009 03:56:54 +0200
> > Joachim Breitner <email@example.com> escreveu:
> > (...)
> > > This time it seems that Marco has chosen to start
> > > haskell-hint_0.3.1.0-2 even though -1 was not uploaded. Or was it?
> > It wasn't, just like haskell-ghc-mtl. This one was shown in "Newer
> > upstream release available". These packages are ready already, but
> > I'm waiting for haskell-monadcatchio-mtl, which I just uploaded to
> > the darcs repository, reach amd64 to build it and ask you to upload.
> It’s available now, but it seems that ghc-mtl nees a newer
> Configuring ghc-mtl-126.96.36.199...
> hlibrary.setup: At least the following dependencies are missing:
> MonadCatchIO-mtl >=0.2.0.0
> I set the distribution to UNRELEASED again, to indicate that this
> package is not yet fit for upload.
I don't get the meaning of the UNRELEASED tag. At first I thought that it was
related to how the package (the content of the debian/ directory) is; so, when
the package was ok, and we were only waiting for the deps to reach the archive,
they could be set to released, that is, unstable.
I understand what you're suggesting is that UNRELEASED means that the package
cannot be uploaded now. So, we would have to wait for other uploads to, then,
change the state of the packages. If this is the case, then ghc-mtl would need
to be UNRELEASED even if the dependency on MonadCatchIO-mtl was not versioned
before it passes through NEW. And this is the case of hint too, which depends
I think I like the first approach, because UNRELEASED will only be related to
the state of the package, and not to the context of the archive. In this case
there will be packages that are ready to upload, but waiting for the
dependencies. In the other way, if the package is UNRELEASED, then it should
be uploaded now, cause all the dependencies are ok.
What do you think?