Hi, Am Dienstag, den 18.08.2009, 14:31 +1000 schrieb Simon Horman: > > 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. I don’t argue against a libghc6-platform-dev package that pulls in the dependencies. But I want to avoid having two HTTP libraries in Debian, because then the user who needs a HTTP library will search for one, find two, and then have to decide which one to use. From the three options in the original post, I was inclined to C (a renamed platform package), but given that Arch is also doing B and it’s a bit less confusing, I guess we can go with that. The plan would be: * Package haskell-platform * Remove the strict version dependencies from the cabal file. This way, when we update the dependency, we can make the platform installable again by a binNMU instead of a sourceful upload. The package will still have strict dependencies on the Debian package level. * Upload it :-) Would we want to name it libghc6-platform-dev, as all the other packages are named, or haskell-platform, as it’s more likely to be found this way? 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