Hi, Am Freitag, den 14.01.2011, 18:20 +0530 schrieb Joachim Breitner: > Am Freitag, den 14.01.2011, 10:45 -0200 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e > Silva: > > 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? > > no, that can happen at the same time. Or rather: ghc-7 is uploaded > first, making everything uninstallable, and then we fix this up by > uploading all libraries. > > > > 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? ok, I misread your question. Yes, there is an advantage: This way, ghc can build-depend on haskell-devscripts and make use of the scripts therein, even on architectures where there is no ghc package or if haskell-build-essentials would depend on the newer ghc package that we are just trying to build. Or if we add a program to haskell-build-essentials (e.g. a leksah data collector) that we don’t want ghc to build-depend on. So it’s just avoiding some loop and allowing for special treatment of ghc. Greetings, Joachim -- Joachim "nomeata" Breitner Debian Developer nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: 4743206C JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part