On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:16:13PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: > Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 21:56 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > > seeing all those build failures of various TH using packages on some > > arches, and the inconsistent handling of it (Architecture field, > > Not-for-Us, just letting it fail), I thought of a possibly cleaner and > > easier solution. I wasn't thinking of doing any uploads that'd introduce new binary packages until after the release. IMHO, any ghc6 uploads could potentially be too disruptive at this point. > > Wouldn’t it be very easy for the ghc6 package to add another virtual > > package into the Provides: line, indicating that this build supports > > ghci/TH? Maybe “ghc6-ghci” (or something better – I don’t care :-))? AFAIK specifying architectures in control fields only applies to B-D and the like. I can't use Provides like that. I would rather use a proper package for that. It would be a lean one but it could still be a place for ghci and runhaskell. > no replies so far. Kaol, would you prefer if I’d open wishlist bugs > against ghc6 for such ideas, so that they are not forgotten in case you > don’t have the time to think about them immediately? I've thought about this myself and will implement it later. That I'm lazy to write emails is nothing new. Sorry.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature