Hi, Am Montag, den 20.07.2009, 19:23 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva: > 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 > hscolour. oh, you are refering to the .haddock-in-.doc-case? Ok, then you are right. But while .haddock is in -dev, ghc6-doc, haddock and hscolour have to be pulled in via B-D, either directly (requiring sourceful uploads), or via haskell-devscripts (allowing for binNMus). 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