Hi, Am Donnerstag, den 08.12.2011, 20:51 +0100 schrieb Iustin Pop: > I'm asking more from the point of view of upstream, rather than Debian > packaging. I presume that due to the ghc6→ghc migration, doing backports > for a few simpler packages (not yesod or such) is still not an easy > task, right? > > A good example that I'm thinking about is aeson; it has about 5-6 > dependencies (I have no idea if these have in turn more dependencies > which are not in squeeze), so I think it would take some effort but > would be doable. > > Thoughts? my thought is that if we do backports, then we should backport the complete set of haskell packages, including ghc, so the ghc6→ghc migration should not be a problem; we just do it in backports as well. So it is basically a problem of rebuilding everything, i.e. of manpower. Maybe, first someone should script something to rebuild ghc_7-* and haskell-* on a Debian stable machine and provide an unofficial backport. If that works out well and user demand is present, then we can consider an official backport. 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