Hi Joey, Am Sonntag, den 27.02.2011, 15:28 -0400 schrieb Joey Hess: > FWIW, I realized another one I could have used is the graphviz package. > I wrote my own, crappy 60 line interface to dot, but it has a much nicer > and presumably less buggy interface. I have used http://hackage.haskell.org/package/language-dot before. And this indicates another problem with packaging stuff from Hackage too liberal: I expect from Debian to make some choices for me, e.g. if there are n different Haskell bindings to some library, I’d be glad to be offered only one by Debian, if there is one that can be considered the best. Of course there are many possible reasons why Debian should package more than one (different feature set, either one a dependency of something packaged). In the absent of such reasons, having only one is desirable. > To some extent, demand-based packaging works. But actually, it may work > better for the perl team than the haskell team, since there are lots > more existing perl programs using CPAN libraries. My concern with only > packaging haskell libraries on demand is that it may create a > bootstrapping problem. I think it’s ok to expect people to use cabal-install if they are need non-packaged libraries, making the bootstrapping easier (if you mean by bootstrapping the problem of getting started with Haskell development on Debian). Also, our approach just doesn’t scale as well yet as the DPG. For the ghc7 transition, we’ll have to touch every source package. I’m happy to have “only” 200, and not 1000, packages. OTOH, as always in Debian’s do-ocracy, if any member of the DHG feels like uploading lots of interesting Hackage package, that’s fine with me. 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