Re: haskell-debian vs. newest HaXml
Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Am Freitag, den 11.09.2009, 07:02 +1000 schrieb Erik de Castro Lopo:
>>> This is good news. But I don't think it really changes much in the
>>> short term. 1.20 will not be backwards compatible with 1.13, and
>>> almost everyone uses the 1.13 interface right now. So, we need to keep
>>> both until everyone migrates.
>>>
>>> I guess it means we should plan to have both available, instead of
>>> just 1.13?
>> This would suggest that we need a HaXmL1.13 and leave the current
>> HaxMl unchanged.
>
> I’m reluctant to agree here. Having two separate branches of the same
> software in Debian should be the exception.
>
> If HaXml-1.19 is going to be the next stable, I’d rather see the HaXml
> using packages follow suite and start to be compatible with that
> version, preferably before ghc6-6.12 is ready for the migration to
> squeeze.
But Debian packages aren't the only users of HaXml. Suddenly a lot of
custom code at my employer broke when I did an apt-get upgrade on my sid
box one day because of it. So I just grabbed the source version from
testing and rebuilt it for sid. And yes, there's cabal-install and
friends. But the point is: we're here to make life easy for users, so
let's give them the HaXml 1.13 through squeeze and zap it after that.
Also I'm not sure it's realistic to expect all HaXml-using packages to
be converted by squeeze, which will freeze in December, last I heard.
I disagree that having two versions of HaXml is a problem. Our
packaging system can handle it, ghc can handle it. This very situation
is exactly why we often do that.
-- John
Reply to: