Em Seg, 2010-01-04 às 00:27 +0100, Joachim Breitner escreveu:
> Am Sonntag, den 03.01.2010, 17:14 -0200 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e
> > As ghc6 now provides libghc6-filepath-dev, I don't see much point in
> > keeping this package in the repository. Should we ask for its removal?
> I’m fine
> with removing them. Of course, only after making sure the reverse
> build-dependencies are checked whether they build without it (or after
> making sure that currently, the buildds would only install ghc6 and not
> libghc6-filepath-dev anyways).
> $ apt-cache showpkg libghc6-filepath-dev
> Package: libghc6-filepath-dev
> Reverse Depends:
> Reverse Provides:
> ghc6 6.10.4-1
I get different results here:
$ apt-cache showpkg libghc6-filepath-dev
Notice I have only sid in my sources.list. As seen from here:
libghc6-filepath-dev is provided by ghc6 only.
haskell-filepath is producing only haskell-filepath-doc and
Other place to get this information:
I just noticed missingh depends on libhugs-filepath:
$ grep-dctrl -FBuild-Depends -sPackage
I'm not sure about the hugs status in Debian, but this seems to be the
only motivation for me to keep haskell-filepath. Maybe John Goerzen
could give us a light in it, since he's the maintainer of missingh.
Anyway, we need to take a special look to haskell-filepath, since it's
the only one in this situation. I'd say we drop it until someone with
interest on hugs shows up to deal with these situations. If not, maybe
we should drop haskell-filepath-doc, since ghc6-doc already provides