[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Hoogle packaging - a few questions

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:09:36PM +0200, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 09:27:18AM +0200, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> > Hi Iustin,
> > 
> > 
> > Am Dienstag, den 22.07.2014, 22:15 +0200 schrieb Iustin Pop:
> > > > Probably. Generally the hoogle package is not in its best shape, so
> > > > whatever you stumble about is likely improved by what you want to do.
> > > 
> > > Thanks, will try to.
> > 
> > the RC bug has been open for so long now, hoogle has been removed from
> > testing.
> Ouch :(
> > What is the status of your work on getting hoogle behave properly again?
> I will have it done and uploaded by the end of this week.

I'll upload a new version in a few moments. It turned out in the end
that my upstream --no-download functionality is not useful, since the
"data" subcommand has changed so much that we don't want to use it.

I think the new update-hoogle script keeps the functionality of the old
correctly (local packages + the keyword definitions) but fixing the
'internet download' issue , so the RC bug should be taken care of. But I
don't think the CGI functionality works anymore - at least the
apache.conf configuration needs to be updated, there are some CGI
patches that are not in the 'series' file, etc. So there's still work
left to do on this package, but that'll have to wait another week on my


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: