Re: Changed base ABI hash, Was: Accepted ghc6 6.12.1-9 (source all i386)
On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 09:44:29AM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Am Samstag, den 13.02.2010, 16:51 +0000 schrieb Kari Pahula:
> > ghc6 (6.12.1-9) unstable; urgency=low
> > .
> > * Remove /usr/lib/ghc-$(ProjectVersion)/lib/haddock (ie. the internal
> > haddock binary that ghc6 used at build time) from the ghc6 package.
> > * Install haddock's files from /usr/share/haddock-$VERSION in ghc6
> > package, not ghc6-doc.
> caused, at least on AMD64, a change in the base ABI hash:
Ouch. I didn't think of testing for those since all I did was to
change haddock related things. One thing that implicitly changed from
-8 to -9 was that the former was built with 6.10.4, the latter with
6.12.1. But with a stage 2 compiler, it shouldn't matter. Perhaps it
did. Anyone still have -8 and -9 ghc6 debs for amd64 on their hard
drive? I'd like to hear what's the output of
http://people.debian.org/~kaol/iface-diff run on those two.
> This means we need to do binNMUs, and we need to do them ???blindly???
> because we can not tell from the outside what ABI versions ghc provides.
I could remember to check if the interfaces' hashes change from
version to version even when there's no specific cause to suspect it.
No harm in playing it safe. But I would have needed to do it on the
amd64 package to catch this one. I built the i386 packages myself and
they were indeed fine, now that I checked them.
> We could consider using dh_haskell_provides also for ghc6 and ghc6-prof,
> so that they list the ABI is they provide. Any other ideas?
I still wish we could get away with just relying on not changing
ghc6's ABI in Debian revisions.