Hi,
Am Samstag, den 07.06.2014, 17:24 +0200 schrieb Joachim Breitner:
> it seems we need to deviate from our usual policy and package Cabal
> separately (i.e. libghc-cabal-{dev,prof,doc} as usual), despite this
> being shipped with GHC. There are many useful new features in Cabal-1.18
> and cabal-install-1.18 that our users would not miss, such as "cabal
> sandbox" and Cabal features that install the images in the diagrams-lib
> documentation.
>
> I _think_ we can just package Cabal as usual, and thing will work. I’m
> not quite sure. Any predictions or comments?
first thing that would break: The package-plan will complain about
anything that uses ghc (including doctest). Which makes sense: The
package-plan requires exactly one version of each package, and if ghc
ships one and libghc-cabal-dev ships another, there is no way out.
An alternative would be to replace Cabal in ghc with the latest version.
I’ll see if that builds.
Greetings,
Joachim
--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F
JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part