Hi, 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 libghc6-sha-.* 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 :-) 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