Hi, Am Dienstag, den 09.02.2010, 11:09 +0200 schrieb Kari Pahula: > Hello. I'd like to upload the next version of ghc6 to unstable. Great! Thanks for your work so far. > 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 think so. Marco recently got his account, so we can both do uploads. I think we’ll split the dependency tree in a sensible way and just keep building packages for a while :-) > 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. While we are at it: Should we remove haddock, hscolour etc. from the library build dependencies, and make them a dependency of haskell-devscripts? The rationale would be that the packaging scripts of the libraries no longer actually call haddock or hscolour, and only haskell-devscripts does. And if we, for some reason, stop using hscolour, or switch to a different program etc. then we only need to change one package. (This would be another step in the direction: Lots of very simple library packages, more intelligence in the special packages.) Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil