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

Re: [Pkg-haskell-maintainers] Most of libghc-*-doc packages are unusable with GHC 7.0.3


Am Mittwoch, den 13.04.2011, 23:38 +0200 schrieb Milan Straka:
> Hi,
> thank you for the great work of packaging Haskell - the new Haskell
> Platform was packaged almost instantaneously :)


> There is a small problem with most of current libghc-*-doc packages,
> consider libghc-deepseq-*. There are following versions in unstable:
> [..]

> The +b1 versions were rebuilt against GHC 7.0.3, the versions without
> +b1 against GHC 7.0.2. The libghc-deepseq-doc therefore ships with the file
> /usr/lib/ghc-7.0.2/haddock/deepseq-
> But with ghc 7.0.3 and libghc-deepseq-* packages, the command
>   ghc-pkg --global dump
> returns beside others:
>   haddock-interfaces: /usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/haddock/deepseq-
> Mind the different ghc version.
> The documentation of deepseq package is therefore missing in the
> documentation index (/usr/lib/ghc-doc/gen_contents_index skips over
> package deepseq, as the deepseq.haddock for ghc-7.0.3 does not exist).
> It would be great if also the libghc-*-doc packages could be rebuilt too.

Ouch, this is bad. I guess we really should have removed the ghc version
name from the paths before starting the migration (as that would enable
use to keep using the docs even when we upgrade ghc to a new version and
use binNMUs to rebuild the packages).

So here is what we should do: Upload a ghc revision that
uses /usr/lib/ghc/, and then do a sourceful upload of all packages who
have been transitioned so far.

Note that this is not a pressing issue in the sense that it should hold
up the transition; that round of re-building can then happen in any

What does the rest of the DHG think of this approach?


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: