Hi, Am Freitag, den 14.01.2011, 10:04 -0200 schrieb Marco Silva: > Is the idea to package ghc 7 somewhat like ghc 6 is packaged right now, or to > do major changes at once? I think it's time to review some things in > haskell-devscripts too, like the (only =) ) bug in the package: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=586723 . > > Also, there is the problem of the size of the package. I thought about > splitting the haskell packages from the compiler package, generating, for > instance, libghc-base-dev, libghc-containers-dev, libghc-cabal-dev and so on. > What do you think? I think that we should not do too much in one step, at least not if these steps are easily separated. Anything that requires changes to all libraries (such as renaming to libghc-) should be done in one step. Nothing more. What we could do to further simplify the haskell-* packages: Create a meta package haskell-build-essentials which depends on haskell-devscripts, the current ghc package, ghc-doc, ghc-prof, haddock etc. This way: * The build dependency list of haskell libraries becomes very small. * ghc could build-depend on haskell-devscripts, so we do not have to copy the code that generates the hash-based dependencies. Only downside I can think of is that packages which do not build -prof packages would sill download ghc-prof at build time – neglectible. Anything else that requires a change of all source packages? 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