Re: Should haskell-devscripts depend on hscolour?
Em Tue, 21 Jul 2009 00:18:05 +0200
Joachim Breitner <email@example.com> escreveu:
> Am Montag, den 20.07.2009, 19:03 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e
> > > This is actually a neat idea to avoid the sourceful uploads that I
> > > mentioned in my last mail: If the upcoming haskell-devscripts that will
> > > move haddock files to -dev would depend on these five packages, it is no
> > > problem if some haskell-* packages still list them as B-D-I, as they
> > > have haddock as a B-D.
> > On the other hand, ghc6-doc, haddock and hscolour will be a B-D.
> > This is not a problem if .haddock file gets to -dev, but it is if it
> > don't.
> not sure what you mean: B-D will be satisfied for both binary-indep and
> binary-dep, i.e. always. It is only B-D-I that might be missing in some
> cases (e.g. buildds). There is no Build-Depends-Dep.
Yes. The problem is that ghc6-doc, haddock and hscolour will always be
satisfied, even in arch-specific buildds, which wouldn't need them. This is,
of course, only in the case where .haddock is still in -doc packages.
My point is that the split of B-D in B-D and B-D-I is useful, and we would lost
this distinction making haskell-devscripts depends on ghc6-doc, haddock and