[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Heading for unstable


Am Freitag, den 18.03.2011, 11:49 +0100 schrieb Giovanni Mascellani:
> On 18/03/2011 05:04, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Also, should we move to unstable with a regular upload, where the ghc
> > packages are built by the buildd’s against ghc6, or by somehow copying
> > existing ghc-7 binaries to unstable and _then_ doing a sourceful upload?
> > Previously I thought the latter might be easier, but I think our package
> > actually builds find against ghc6, so I guess we can go with the former.
> How would these two hypotheses relate with the libgmp3-related issue? In
> unstable we still have libgmp3-dev, but early or late libgmp10-dev will
> enter sid and we'll have to do again the Provides trick. I'm not fully
> aware of the implications this will have: other than asking GMP
> maintainers to keep the Provides against libgmp3-dev (or adding it again
> when we'll need to do the bootstrap with the new dependencies), I think
> this will require a rebuild of all Haskell packages. Am I correct?
> Moreover, how do you practically implement your second alternative? And
> wouldn't it cause problems because of the GMP version disparity?
> Personally, I find the first option more clean and I would prefer it,
> but I'm not sure I'm not missing anything in my evaluation.

we have libgmp10-dev in unstable already, libgmp3-dev is gone. But as
libgmp10-dev in unstable has the Provides: trick, ghc6 is installable in
sid, so the initial unstable upload of ghc-7 will work. Once that is
built on all arches, we can tell the gmp maintainer that he may drop the

Or maybe I am not fully getting your point.


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

Reply to: