Hello. I'd like to upload the next version of ghc6 to unstable. I've merged haddock into the ghc6 package now. I want to build (and patch, looks like nobody tested 2.6.0 with a ghc without ghci) only one copy of the sources and seeing how it's included in upstream ghc distribution tarball, I thought it would be simpler to just use that and not have haddock packaged separately at all. This all started when I started regarding .haddock files as arch dependent, which would have turned ghc6's B-D-I on haddock into a B-D. I enabled the included haddock and then thought that why not just build /usr/bin/haddock itself from the same source. haddock's pretty tightly wound to use GHC's API currently and I don't think that having it packaged separately is quite justified anymore. The downside of this is that we'd need to do sourceful uploads of some (most?) libraries, since they have a versioned dependeny on haddock. Are we up to that? I'd still leave haddock as an unversioned dependency. I may still split haddock into its own package and not have ghc6 Provide haddock. Not everyone needs it and it's quite large. Unless someone objects, I'll upload the next ghc6 version to unstable. It should now build on ia64, allowing it to enter testing. Thanks to marcot for testing building ghc6 on alpha and other architectures, and for the kfreebsd-amd64 port.
Description: Digital signature