Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 28.01.2009, 06:55 +0000 schrieb Magnus Therning:
> Just thought I'd report that ghc6-6.10.1+dfsg1 seems to build nicely on
> amd64.
Good to hear.
> I saw a few Debian-related warnings:
>
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libncurses.so.5 could be avoided
> if "debian/ghc6/usr/lib/ghc-6.10.1/ghc" were not uselessly linked
> against it (they use none of its symbols).
> dpkg-shlibdeps: warning: dependency on libutil.so.1 could be avoided if
> "debian/ghc6/usr/lib/ghc-6.10.1/ghc-pkg
> debian/ghc6/usr/lib/ghc-6.10.1/runghc
> debian/ghc6/usr/lib/ghc-6.10.1/hsc2hs
> debian/ghc6/usr/lib/ghc-6.10.1/bin/hasktags
> debian/ghc6/usr/lib/ghc-6.10.1/bin/hpc
> debian/ghc6/usr/lib/ghc-6.10.1/ghc" were not uselessly linked against it
> (they use none of its symbols).
This is very non-critical. Theoretically, one could improve the binaries
by making sure that only those are linked against, for example, ncurses
that use it, instead of using the same linker flags for all of them. But
this really is more an issue with the upstream build system than with
the Debian package. If you want to get rid of them, maybe you can create
a patch and submit it to the GHC team.
> dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown substitution variable ${misc:Depends}
> dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown substitution variable ${misc:Depends}
> dpkg-gencontrol: warning: unknown substitution variable ${misc:Depends}
misc:Depends is a substitution variable that is usually filled by some
of the dh_* scripts in debian/rules. I think this warning just means
that no script added something there, and can probably be ignored.
> There still doesn't seem to be a package for amd64 in experimental,
> which confuses me. Where can I find out more about how experimental
> works.
> How come there's uncertainty for building on all platforms reported by
> the buildsystem[2]?
I’m a bit surprised about this as well. I guess you can ask on
#debian-devel on OFTC, or as at experimental@buildd.debian.org. If you
do, please tell me what you find out :-)
> Am I right in assuming that PTS[1] is the place to keep track of
> progress?
Yes, besides binNMUs, they are not reflected there.
> Am I correct in thinking that the amd64 build[3] failed because of
> haddock? (haddock 2.4.1-1 is available in experimental amd64 now, so
> what's keeping the system from making another attempt?)
You are referring to:
http://experimental.debian.net/build.php?&pkg=ghc6
Probably a full build queue for amd64, but that’s just speculation.
> Sorry for turning this into a request for a lesson on how Debian
> works...
Thats ok. It’s an investment in more haskell packaging power in the
future :-)
Gruß,
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