Dear David, sorry for the late reply. I’m reviewing your changes right now Am Sonntag, den 17.08.2014, 15:08 -0700 schrieb David Fox: > Ok, I have created a version of haskell-devscripts that supports ghcjs > and should be backwards compatible with the current version. The only > visible differences should be removal of support for documentation > packages with the prefix "haskell-" instead of "libghc-". I also > removed a few cases where it seemed to be building the package "ghc" > or "ghc-prof". The forked darcs repo > is http://hub.darcs.net/ddssff/haskell-devscripts. There are fifteen > patches, the first two are bug fixes, the rest are an attempt at a > clear exposition of the changes I have made. There is only one patch > that has a lot of complexity, it has "Largeish patch" in its name. > > > Basically, I converted all the makefile recipes that were in > hlibrary.mk into bash functions in Dh_Haskell.sh. This makes it > easier to tell what the makefile is doing and avoids duplication of > code between make world and bash world. I'm testing it on a bunch of > packages now, but the packages are all fairly uniform, as their > debianizations were generated by cabal-debian. Obviously, some > outside testing would be a good thing. > * Allow building of documentation when when package has no Haskell modules ✓ * Fix a bash bug in the dev library install recipe ✓ * Remove cases for binary debs in the ghc package - haskell-devscripts is not a build dependency of ghc While the package is not a build-dependency (which would induce too many build dependency cycles), we _do_ use ./dh_haskell_provides in GHC, after copying it there. So this code needs to stay. * Remove support for obsolete doc package prefix "haskell-" ✓ * Pass --package-db to the cabal configure command ✓, but why? * Pass --with-haddock and --with-ghc to cabal haddock again ✓, but why? What does this change? * Add functions to Dh_Haskell.sh to parse library package names, compute compiler names and compiler dependent paths You use “ghc -e” which requires GHCi which is not available on all architectures, so this is not good. The proper way to do it is to parse the output of "ghc --info". I’m pulling it for now. * Move the make recipes from hlibrary.mk to Dh_Haskell.sh Nice cleanup * Add a postinst script to the ghcjs dev library to run recache Shouldn’t this be handled by a dpkg trigger in your ghcjs package? Not pulling. * Remove some make variables that are now computed - DEB_HADDOCK_DIR, DEB_HADDOCK_HTML_DIR, DEB_HOOGLE_TXT_DIR ✓ * Update changelog ✓, but will be rewritten before uploading to Debian It looks like not pulling * Remove cases for binary debs in the ghc package - haskell-devscripts is not a build dependency of ghc prevents me from pulling these patches: * Large patch to parameterize the name of the haskell compiler in order to support ghcjs * Add duplicates of the libghc rules modified to build libghcjs packages * Remove set -x directives in hlibrary.mk * Add improved debugging code (disabled) * Supply default compiler to packages_hc call in dh_haskell_blurbs. I’m afraid that this means that the patches I did pull left me with something broken. Not sure how we should proceed from here. Do you want to integrate my review until I’m satisfied with the overall result, which I then can pull in one go? I see that os() and cpu() are only used when building ghcjs packages. But still, reading that data from ghc --info is saner. Or maybe even from dpkg-architecture. 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