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