Hiya, On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 07:02:46AM -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote:
Hi. Excerpts from Iain Lane's message of Sex Mai 27 06:52:48 -0300 2011: (...)On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 06:39:59PM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote: >Hi, > >Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 16:54 +0100 schrieb Iain Lane: >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:14:09PM -0300, Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva wrote: >> >Hi. >> > >> >Excerpts from Debian FTP Masters's message of Qui Mai 26 11:17:08 -0300 2011: >> >(...) >> >> haskell98-report_20080907-2_amd64.changes uploaded successfully to ftp-master.debian.org >> > >> >Does it still makes sense to keep this package in Debian? If we are planning >> >to keep one haskell report, maybe it should be 2010. In this case, I propose >> >we changed the package name to haskell-report, to avoid problems on the >> >future. >> >> Do we know what GHC is planning on doing? On [0] you can see the >> statement: >> >> As with all known Haskell systems, GHC implements some extensions to >> the language. They are all enabled by options; by default GHC >> understands only plain Haskell 98. >> >> So if Haskell 98 is still relevant then we should keep it and package >> 2010 separately. >> >> If not, then I agree we should do as you propose. > >Maybe the 2010 report is clear on what has changed since 98 (after all, >there is not much difference), then there’d be a one-stop source. > >If we want to keep both, then, to avoid confusion, I’d still prefer one >haskell-report package that ships both documents, preferably with a >short introductory index page. I don't think it's confusing, especially since the package is called haskell*98*-report, installs into /usr/share/doc/haskell*98*-report, and promenantly displays a "Haskell 98" logo. 2010 would be similar (although no logo). Users can be trusted to know what they want, and we can help them in this regard by making the package descriptions useful. The 2010 report mentions[0] "[t]he most significant language changes in Haskell 2010 relative to Haskell 98", but I can't see an exhaustive list. A meta package which installs both and gives a nice index page would be a good idea though.Yes, maybe it's not confusing, but I still prefer the idea of having only one package for reports, since the user is probably interested in both, and I don't see the need to create two packages only for haskell reports.
I don't really care about the minutiae of how it's packaged (even if personally I think combining would be more work than it's worth), so if you think it would be better to have them together — 3.0 (quilt)'s multiple orig feature might come in handy — then by all means go ahead and do it. :-). It might be a little bit more complicated to update (and represent in Darcs), but that's up to the person doing the work do assess.
Cheers, Iain
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature