Re: A smallish transition needed for haskell libraries

To: "Kari Pahula" <kaol@debian.org>
Cc: debian-haskell@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: A smallish transition needed for haskell libraries
From: "David Fox" <ddssff@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:36:10 -0800
Message-id: <[🔎] ef4b75910901150936m397fcfe7y84f4ea8ade3bc00@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20090115054014.GA27443@piperka.net>
References: <[🔎] 20090114231019.GA26165@piperka.net> <[🔎] 20090115000318.GA30758@complete.org> <[🔎] 20090115054014.GA27443@piperka.net>

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:40 PM, Kari Pahula <kaol@debian.org> wrote:

IMHO it's a bad practice to use ghc6 (<< $version) in build deps. All
it does is to overspecify and make your packages less binNMUable.

I like to strongly agree with this sentiment whenever I see it.

-david

Reply to:

References:
- A smallish transition needed for haskell libraries
  - From: Kari Pahula <kaol@debian.org>
- Re: A smallish transition needed for haskell libraries
  - From: John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org>
- Re: A smallish transition needed for haskell libraries
  - From: Kari Pahula <kaol@debian.org>

Prev by Date: Re: A smallish transition needed for haskell libraries
Next by Date: Debian haskell packaging: We're way behind
Previous by thread: Re: A smallish transition needed for haskell libraries
Next by thread: Re: A smallish transition needed for haskell libraries
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread