Re: ghc6-6.12.1 is out
Hi Joachim.
Em Seg, 2009-12-14 às 14:46 +0100, Joachim Breitner escreveu:
(...)
> * Upload ghc6 to experimental first and test a few things, or get it
> going in unstable directly?
I think it's better to upload to experimental first, to avoid some
months without a reasonable haskell system in debian.
> * What general changes do we want to implement now that everything gets
> recompiled anyways. Some ideas:
> a) Hash-based-dependencies (or, in ghc-speech,
> package-id-based-dependencies). See
> http://haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.12.1/html/users_guide/packages.html#package-ids
> for more information.
This idea is good and old idea, and it's simple to implement now.
> b) Get rid of -prof packages and merge them into the -dev package.
> (Idea by kaol, came up in the thread “GHC 6.12 and shared
> libraries”, no conclusion, but I’m supportive of it.)
What is the point here? Is it just:
Pros: make the number of binary packages generated smaller.
Cons: make each package bigger, with maybe unused stuff.
If it is I'm not sure about it.
> c) -doc package dependencies. Predominant opinion was to have them as
> hard dependencies, I think, but this needs to be implemented in
> haskell-devscripts.
I still don't like the idea. One more time, is it:
Pros: no more broken links.
Cons: big dependencies, again with maybe unused stuff.
I don't like both propositions because they would cause users to have to
install more files then they really want to. In the first one, forcing
the user to install more files is justified by the excessive number of
binary packages; in the second one, with the resulting broken links. I
I don't think neither of them are good arguments.
Having a lot of packages is good from a user perspective, because it
gives more flexibility. The problem of managing them should be treated
in another way, not trying to merge some of the packages, which would
just mean that the user is forced to install both, even if he wants only
one of them.
The broken links are an option of the user. By using -doc packages as
dependencies, the user loses the option of not installing them --
actually, he can do it, but it'd cause a lot of trouble.
> d) -dev-packages without maintainer scripts. If packages get
> registered via a trigger in the ghc6 package, or if they drop their
> package information in a directory where ghc-pkg automatically
> merges them from (Kaol discovered code about that once), life would
> be a lot simpler, I’d say.
This is also a good idea.
Greetings.
(...)
--
marcot
http://marcot.iaaeee.org/
Reply to: