[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: haskell-sha


Am Donnerstag, den 24.12.2009, 00:03 +0100 schrieb Giovanni Mascellani:
> Joachim Breitner ha scritto:
> >  * There seems to be a consensus for libghc6-*-doc for the doc package
> > name for new packages.
> No problem with it. Anyway, just out of curiosity, why is this so? Doc
> packages seem to be compiler independent: why do they have a compiler
> dependent name?

I guess the main motivation is to be able to do apt-get install

Personally, I’m not sure which naming scheme is better.

> > I’m untagging the package until you adressed these issues, ok?
> I think all this issues are fixed, so I'm releasing again (after the
> lintian and cowbuilder run).

Uploaded, thanks.

One more wish: Since we don’t want to just package all of Hackage
without thought, I’d like to see a small rational (e.g. “is a dependency
for gitit”) in ITPs. No problem if you forget it though, I’ll ask
then :-)


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

Reply to: