Hi,
Am Freitag, den 15.04.2011, 07:34 -0300 schrieb Marco Túlio Gontijo e
Silva:
> Excerpts from Joachim Breitner's message of Sex Abr 15 02:09:26 -0300 2011:
> (...)
> > I have an alternative suggestion, given that uploading all the
> > previously built packages again would take, as we could see, quite some
> > time:
> >
> > Why not add something to ghc’s postinst in the sense of:
> >
>
> if [ ! -l /usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3 ]
> then
> mv /usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/* /usr/lib/ghc
> rmdir /usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3
> ln -s ghc /usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3
> fi
>
> Notice the change on the rmdir line.
correct, thanks.
> > and the same for ghc-7.0.2.
>
> I can't see a problem that this would cause. And using this will remove the
> necessity of upgrading ghc and haskell-devscripts at the same time.
I feel a bit uneasy about changing all of /usr/lib/ghc-{ver}
to /usr/lib/ghc – who knows in what unexpected places the other path is
expected. So here is a less intrusive variant of the above idea:
if [ ! -l /usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/haddock ]
then
mv /usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/haddock/* /usr/lib/haddock
rmdir /usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/haddock
ln -s ../haddock /usr/lib/ghc-7.0.3/haddock
fi
So we only assemble the haddock files from different ghc versions in a
shared location, but leave the rest of the file naming systematics the
same.
But then, Marco found that removing the version from the paths generally
has merits of its own. So which should be preferred?
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