Re: ∀lib: Debian(lib) >= Platform(lib)
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 09:39:20PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Montag, den 17.08.2009, 12:12 +1000 schrieb Simon Horman:
> > On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 12:16:19AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > > Am Sonntag, den 16.08.2009, 19:36 +0100 schrieb Ganesh Sittampalam:
> > > > > Libraries that are newer in Debian will stay so, so we won?t be able to
> > > > > support the platform fully. Now we have these options:
> > > >
> > > > What is the long-term plan for this issue - will new instances of it be
> > > > allowed to arise, or will Debian allow the platform to catch up and then
> > > > not jump ahead again?
> > >
> > > I’m not sure if there is a consensus yet, so far not many developers
> > > have commented on the issue.
> > >
> > > Personally, I’m happy to give the platform the chance to catch up, but
> > > I’d always reserve Debian the right to jump when required for good
> > > reasons (e.g. new version of library needed by newer version of a
> > > program that we want, or bug in the libraries).
> >
> > Is there a reason that two versions of some libraries can't be
> > present in the archive - one to match the platform, and one that
> > is ahead of that?
>
> yes. Creating packages in Debian is far more involved than on hackage.
> Also, having two versions of a package without good reasons (such as the
> parsec or quickcheck cases) will likely be rejected by the ftp-masters.
>
> Last but not least Debian aims to make a selection for it’s users, so
> it’s actually a service not having multiple versions of the same
> package :-)
Ok. I must miss-understand what Haskell platform is and how it works.
I was assuming that Haskell platform is something Debian would provide
as something users can install. That it would suck in all the relevant
dependencies. And that there wasn't much flexibilities in those dependencies.
Reply to: