Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 22.01.2009, 15:09 +0200 schrieb Kari Pahula: > I don't think that using interfaces' hash values to control rebuilds > is a bad idea. What I'd like to use it for is to gather hashes of > Haskell packages' ifaces to an external site that would advise what > binNMUs are needed to get every library usable, again, when something > changes. Once it gets mature enough we can hook it up to buildds (if > RMs agree, etc.) and issue those automatically. Ok, I am convinced. That leaves the question: Should libraries depend on the exact version (including Debian revision), requiring possible unnecessary re-builds of parts of the dependency tree, or should they depend on the upstream version only, with the risk of temporary breakage until it’s noticed and binNMUs have been done? 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