Hi. Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of Sex Jan 14 10:39:58 -0200 2011: (...) > Am Freitag, den 14.01.2011, 10:04 -0200 schrieb Marco Silva: (...) > > Also, there is the problem of the size of the package. I thought about > > splitting the haskell packages from the compiler package, generating, for > > instance, libghc-base-dev, libghc-containers-dev, libghc-cabal-dev and so on. > > What do you think? > > I think that we should not do too much in one step, at least not if > these steps are easily separated. Anything that requires changes to all > libraries (such as renaming to libghc-) should be done in one step. > Nothing more. I wasn't talking about the rename of libraries, but of the split of ghc6 package. But I agree that things should be done one at a time. You mean we should rename the libraries to libghc before uploading the ghc7 package? > What we could do to further simplify the haskell-* packages: Create a > meta package haskell-build-essentials which depends on > haskell-devscripts, the current ghc package, ghc-doc, ghc-prof, haddock > etc. This way: > * The build dependency list of haskell libraries becomes very small. > * ghc could build-depend on haskell-devscripts, so we do not have to > copy the code that generates the hash-based dependencies. Is there an advantage of doing this over just including ghc, ghc-doc, ghc-prof and haddock as a dependency of haskell-devscripts? Greetings. (...) -- marcot http://marcot.eti.br/ [Flattr=54498]
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature