Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 26.02.2009, 22:23 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva: > I'm not very convinced. I'm not trying to convince about the other > side, but just to learn: why is it bad to have a silly haskell package > high in the dependency tree? Because a new release of extensible-exceptions will require re-builds of all depending packages (and their depending packages)... Not that I expect this particular package to have many new upstream releases, but it’s still quite a pain. Also, ftp-masters might get alerted if they see three new binary package for essentially two lines of code. The -doc package will not be useful either... but leaving it out breaks users’s expectations. OTOH, I just noticed that when people want to compile packages from hackage themselves, and these packages depend on extensible-exceptions, then they would either have to patch these as well (probably not so nice), or install extensible-exceptions manually as well (probably ok). What do the others think? > > I noticed that you use darcs to track your debian/ dir only. In case > > you > > are not aware, you can use quilt or cdbs’s simple-patchsys to put your > > changes there too. > > I know about quilt and simple-patchsys. Do they integrate with darcs? Well, you should use them orthogonally, i.e. store your patches in your darcs repositories like any other files. Since you don’t track the upstream sources with darcs, there should not be a problem. 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