Hi, Am Mittwoch, den 19.11.2008, 11:15 +0100 schrieb Philipp Kern: > Hi John, > > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 09:51:01PM +0100, Stefan Potyra wrote: > > simply rebuilding will make the maintainer scripts pickup the newer > > missingh dependency, and hence will fix this bug. > > However I haven't tested yet if haskell-configfile will still be > > functional with the later missingh (though doubt it isn't). > > adding calls to dh_haskell_depends would prevent further bug reports > of this kind. It looks like it fixes the problem also in this case > properly (i.e. adding sensible binary dependencies). Would you mind > to add such calls to your debian/rules or look into adding it > to dh_haskell? hmm, another case of haskell packages braking our buildd infrastructure. We really need get this fixed. John, you haven’t yet commented on the idea of a Haskell Packaging Group similar to pkg-perl which could handle all the uniform haskell library packages we have (not including haskell binaries). What do you think of that? I’d also like to consolidate the tools we have, haskell-utils and haskell-devscripts, so that the tasks are clearly separated: * haskell-devscripts provides the debhelper scripts to build, configure and install the package, generate the preinst/postinst debhelper snippets and calculates the binary dependencies. * haskell-utils can be used to ease packaging further by providing one standard debian/rules (which uses haskell-devscripts), standad debian/control and an easy way to keep the _source_ dependencies up-to-date. Of course, this should not happen for lenny anymore, but right after that. I’m fearing that we will run into trouble once the buildd admins are finally fed up and won’t build anything that sounds like haskell any more... 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