Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 19.11.2008, 16:39 -0600 schrieb John Goerzen:
> Joachim Breitner wrote:
> >> Oh drat, you're right. I goofed on that. OK, so this would have been
> >> fine if I hadn't broken my own scheme then, eh? If cabal said just
> >> 1.0.2, it would just work?
> >
> > No, it’s just fine:
> > libghc6-missingh-dev (>= 1.0.2.1), libghc6-missingh-dev (<< 1.0.2.1+)
> > means essentially (== 1.0.2.1), as long as you don’t start to add a 5th
> > digit. So when you upload a new version (with a new cabal version), the
> > old packages become uninstallable until re-built, just as intended.
>
> I think you're missing the point. I *want* it to accept 1.0.2.*,
> because revisions at that level only signify Debian changes. Or would
> have, had I not goofed in .cabal.
Ok, right. In this case you have to fix your cabal file and figure out
how to tell dh_haskell_depends that this is your scheme. (Or we
implement some advanced scheme as described earlier that works with the
data from the cabal file directly).
Have you considered using using 1.2.3-1 with a native, non-diff-gz
package?
> > I’m currently talking to kaol on #debian-devel, and agrees, if I got him
> > correctly.
> >
> > BTW, John, while I’m at it I found out that there are more haskell
> > packages that have unversioned binary dependencies, some of them are
> > yours:
>
> [ snip ]
> >
> > And furthermore the configfile-doc package does not have it’s
> > haddock-file registered with ghc-pkg and is not liked from
> > file:///usr/share/doc/ghc6-doc/libraries/index.html (comparing it to
> > haskell-mtl). Is that just not-yet-done, or is there a specific reason
> > for these variations?
>
> You're quite right on all of that. Generally speaking, I have
> unfortunately not had a lot of time to follow the current progress on
> the documentation front in the last year or so. It's not just
> ConfigFile; it's all my packages. This is all part of my (way too long)
> to-do list. When I first packaged these things for Debian, that
> mechanism didn't yet exist.
I see. So can I summarize your position:
* Better haskell-devscripts and -policy are good.
* Your current differences in package (e.g. documentation) are
mostly coincidal and you don’t mind haskell-devscripts changing
these.
* You want to continue use native package version (with the last
digits indicating the debian revision), so dh_haskell_depends
ought to work with that.
* You don’t want to put your libraries under the umbrella of a
packaging group.
Thanks,
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