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. 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