Hi, Am Sonntag, den 31.05.2015, 00:20 +0200 schrieb Iustin Pop: > Not sure I'm convinced. In case of pandoc and hlint, the debian packages > for the binary match the cabal package name, so they could be argued > either way. > > In case of shake, looking at the contents of libghc-shake-data, it seems > we "stole" /usr/share/shake from the actual shake package (Testing > engine for the Lua language version). So we already have a problem with > this… > > The debian policy (section 8.2) also recommends to use "package-name" as > a subdirectory of /usr/share. So: > > > If we have packages with a generic cabal name that put stuff there then > > we need to extend haskell-devscript to allow us to change that flat. > > Patch welcome :-) > > I'd rather prefer that we change the default to be either the source > package name or one of the binary package names. The code shouldn't care > about what the name of this directory is, but it seems it would be safer > to use a non-conflicting one, always. fair point. There is probably not a solution that is ideal everytime. E.g. if the package is libghc-foo-data, then we might still want foo if it is _used_ by a package called foo. So it needs to be properly configurable, and the question is what the default should be. I’ll leave it to whoever actually implements this. 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