Re: Policy rewrite
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 03:45:11PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I started to write down what I think should be in a revised Haskell
> policy. The old one was outdated in that it mentioned multiple compilers
> and was written before the advent of triggers and ABI-based hashes.
>
> I wrote a chapter about the binary package. You can read it here
> http://darcs.debian.org/pkg-haskell/policy/haskell-policy.html/
> and the source is, well, there :-)
>
> Is it useful so far? Do we need a written-down policy for source
> packages, or is the template directory enough documentation for that?
It seems useful to me :-)
> Feel free to clarify, extend, error-correct or rewrite the policy :-)
Section 2.1 Package types[1] states that the documentation and profiling
packages are optional and can be omitted if there are valid reasons to do so.
It might be useful to expand on what a valid reason might be.
Perhaps using an example of a source package that omits one or
more of these optional binary packages.
[1] http://darcs.debian.org/pkg-haskell/policy/haskell-policy.html/ch-libs-bin.html
Reply to: