Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 12.02.2009, 12:46 -0200 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva: > So, my opinion is that these three options should be available. My > question is, then, if hlibrary should be included in the > haskell-devscripts package. I don't think so, cause I think not all > users of haskell-devscripts would use hlibrary.mk, but this argument is > against the inclusion of the dh module in the package too. So I see > three options: > > haskell-devscripts include dh module and hlibrary.mk > haskell-devscripts include the dh module > haskell-devscripts include only the debhelper scripts > > The package available is using the second option, but I tend to like the > third option better, which would need the creation of the > haskell-devscripts-cdbs and haskell-devscripts-dh package. > > What do you think? I don’t see much value in having three package. If we decide to have both dh and cdbs approaches available, they can certainly go in the same package (at least if they are maintained by the same person or by cooperating maintainers). Having the extra file in the package does not hurt users of the other approach. 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